SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Guj) 390

J.M.PANCHAL, ABHILASHA KUMARI
SUO MOTU – Appellant
Versus
S. B. VAKIL, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: MIHIR J.THAKOR, P.K.JANI, S.N.SOPARKAR

J. M. PANCHAL J.

( 1 ) THE instant Suo motu proceedings are registered against the respondent in view of the following facts which emerge from the order dated February 17, 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge. When the learned single Judge was hearing Company application No. 239 of 2005. a mobile phone started ringing in the Court. The court saw that keeping mobile phone in hand, the respondent was walking out of the Court. When the Court noticed this the Court called the respondent. According to the learned Single Judge instead of expressing any remorse or regrets, the respondent started saying that he was keeping his mobile phone on vibration mode but as he had to take some medicines, he had set the alarm which went off. The learned Judge noticed that the respondent did not express a word of regret upto that time and when the Court asked him that the Court was likely to issue a notice to him to show cause, he said that it was the choice of the court. Thereupon, the learned Single Judge by an order dated February 17. 2006 directed to issue notice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top