Sign In

Tag: Bombay High Court

Contempt is among the most misinterpreted and misutilised branches of law. The Court, as protector of the fundamental rights, liberties, and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, cannot invoke its contempt jurisdiction to silence constructive criticism or public-interest advocacy for judicial reform. The Court must protect not only the speech it favours, but equally the speech it finds unpalatable when directed against itself. Debate on public issues must remain uninhibited, robust, and wide open. – Judges must exercise caution before invoking it, since acting contrary to law and binding precedent in doing so may itself expose them to liability. [Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311, Hari Das v. State of W.B., (1964) 7 SCR 237, Legal Remembrancer v. Matilal Ghose, (1914) ILR 41 Cal 173, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj v. Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago, (1978) 2 WLR 902 ; McLeod v. St. Aubyn, [1899] AC 549 ; Walmik Bobde v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1731; R.S. Tamilvendan v. The Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219 ]

The taking of cognizance of a frivolous charge of contempt may attract liability under Sections 166, 219, 211, 120(B), 34, and 107 of the Indian […]

Suppression or Withholding of Binding Precedents Favouring the Opposite Party, and Reliance on Overruled Judgments, Is Not Merely a Matter of Professional Misconduct and Criminal Contempt. The Supreme Court’s Recognition of Binding Precedents as Legal Evidence Raises the Applicability of Sections 230, 231 and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Carrying Punishment of Imprisonment Up to Seven Years Relating to Suppression of Legal Evidence, Fabrication and Use of False Evidence, and Dishonestly Making False Claims Before a Court, Punishable with Imprisonment Up to Seven Years. [M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 148; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432; Samson Arthur v. Quinn Logistic India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 403]

Adv. Nilesh Ojha-Sanvidhani, Chairman , Indian Bar Association. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held, and most recently in M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. […]

आप ‘जस्टिस’ नहीं बल्कि ‘दलाल’ हैं; अपने नाम के आगे से ‘जस्टिस’ हटाइए और उसकी जगह ‘दलाल’ लिखिए!” — उद्धव ठाकरे गुट के प्रवक्ता संजय राउत की वर्तमान एवं पूर्व मुख्य न्यायाधीशों सहित देश के सभी न्यायाधीशों के प्रति चौंकाने वाली, बेलगाम और संविधान-विरोधी मांग

सभी न्यायाधीशों पर, विशेष रूप से भारत के वर्तमान मुख्य न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति सूर्यकांत तथा पूर्व मुख्य न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति भूषण गवई, न्यायमूर्ति संजीव खन्ना, न्यायमूर्ति उदय […]

“न्यायाधीशांनो, तुम्ही ‘जस्टिस’ नाही, तर ‘दलाल’ आहात; नावापुढील ‘जस्टिस’ काढून टाका आणि ‘दलाल’ हे संबोधन लावा!” –  उद्धव ठाकरेंचे प्रवक्ते संजय राऊतांची विद्यमान आणि माजी सरन्यायाधीशांसह देशाच्या सर्व न्यायाधीशांना धक्कादायक, बेताल आणि घटनाविरोधी मागणी

सर्व न्यायाधीशांवर, विशेषतः भारताचे विद्यमान सरन्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ती सूर्यकांत तसेच माजी सरन्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ती भूषण  गवई, संजीव खन्ना,   उदय यू. ललित  यांच्यावर संजय राऊत यांचे बेछूट आरोप […]

‘Bar & Bench’ Caught Flattering — Collegium’s Decision Exposes the Lies! Justice Revati Mohite-Dere didnt considered for Elevation! The Mask of Paid Journalism Torn Off — Corruption Charges Suppressed in news article, Songs of Praise Sung! Bar Associations Aggressive — Demand for CBI Inquiry!

The Collegium overlooked her name, a petition for criminal action is pending before the High Court — and ‘Bar & Bench’s’ dishonesty stands exposed before […]

‘बार अँड बेंच’ने केली चापलुसी — कॉलेजियमच्या निर्णयाने खोटेपणा उघड! न्यायमूर्ती रेवती  मोहिते-डेरे यांना पदोन्नती नाहीच — डावललेच!

पेड जर्नालिझमचा बुरखा फाटला — भ्रष्टाचाराचे आरोप दडवले, स्तुतीचे पोवाडे गायले! ववकील संघटना आक्रमक — सीबीआय चौकशीची जोरदार मागणी! दिनांक १२ जानेवारी २०२६ रोजी ‘बार […]

Unlawful Contempt Conviction of Unnamed Persons, Passed by NCLT Without Following Mandatory Procedure Under the Contempt Rules and Solely on the Basis of Sr. Adv. Darius Khambatta’s Misleading Arguments, Set Aside by NCLAT Bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan with Strictures — Solicitor General Sh. Tushar Mehta Exposes Multiple Illegalities in the Order Passed by NCLT Bench of Retd. Justice Sushil Kochey

Strictures passed by the NCLAT are of such severity that the former Member may face prosecution under Sections 257 and 258 of the Bharatiya Nyaya […]

NCLT मुंबई द्वारा बैंकों के अनाम अधिकारियों के विरुद्ध अवैध अवमानना की सजा सुनाने का चौंकाने वाला और गैरकानूनी फैसला — न्यायमूर्ति अशोक भूषण की NCLAT पीठ द्वारा कड़ी टिप्पणियों सहित निरस्त

यह आदेश अवमानना नियमों के अंतर्गत अनिवार्य प्रक्रिया का पालन किए बिना तथा केवल वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता डेरियस खंबाटा के गैरकानूनी, गुमराह करने वाले एवं भ्रामक […]

NCLT मुंबईने बँकांच्या अनाम अधिकाऱ्यांविरुद्ध बेकायदेशीर अवमान शिक्षा सुनावण्याचा धक्कादायक आणि गैरकायदेशीर निर्णय — न्यायमूर्ती अशोक भूषण यांच्या NCLAT पीठाने कडक ताशेरे नोंदवत रद्द केला

हा आदेश अवमान नियमांअंतर्गत अनिवार्य प्रक्रियेचे पालन न करता तसेच केवळ वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता डेरियस खंबाटा यांच्या बेकायदेशीर, दिशाभूल करणाऱ्या आणि फसव्या युक्तिवादांच्या आधारे पारित करण्यात […]