CONTEMPT – Delhi High Court Judgements

Accepting Unconditional Apology, Delhi High Court Discharges Arnab Goswami, Others In Contempt Case By Former TERI Chief RK Pachauri

admin_lawsdelhi May 28, 2023 0 Comments

“I hereby tender my apology to this Hon'ble Court and request that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept the apology and close the instant proceedings against the…

CONTEMPT

Court also reiterated that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would only lie against an order punishing for contempt, and not against an order rejecting the contempt petition.

admin_lawsdelhi May 31, 2020 0 Comments

Court held that an order of a Court or an undertaking recorded in an order can be overridden by a significant supervening event such as the declaration of the relevant…

CONTEMPT

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 11, Section 12 HELD on each occasion it was only Mr.Ankur Jain and/his counsel who had given/reiterated the undertaking to this Court given by Mr.Ankur Jain and that his aged mother and his sister had only filed affidavits supporting to application CM APPL No.30665/2018, which application was, primarily, for extension of time to comply with order dated 18.07.2018. Hence, Mr. Ankur Jain is guilty of contempt.

admin_lawsdelhi Apr 9, 2020 0 Comments

DELHI HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. ANKUR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Yogesh Khanna, J. ) Contempt Case (C)…

Accepting Unconditional Apology, Delhi High Court Discharges Arnab Goswami, Others In Contempt Case By Former TERI Chief RK Pachauri

Court also reiterated that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would only lie against an order punishing for contempt, and not against an order rejecting the contempt petition.

You Missed

Evidence By Way Of Affidavit Not Mandatory When Documentary Evidence Sufficient For Determining Well-Known Status Of Trademark

DB – services rendered by advocates are professional activities, and, therefore, they cannot be levied with taxes under the “commercial establishment” category

DB – Defamation — Nowhere in the pleadings or in the evidence did the appellant or its witnesses state that the amounts were not due — Respondent’s assertion of there being outstanding amounts which had not been paid by the appellant Company cannot be termed to be false or per se defamatory.