In this criminal contempt application, the High Court accepted the apology filed by the applicant's counsel for an inadvertent error in the petition. The court took a lenient view, issued a warning, closed the proceedings, and discharged the notice against the respondents.
Warning issued; proceedings discharged; notice discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 8 of 2020
Applicant :- In-Re Honourable Court Opposite Party :- Chhote Lal And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suo Moto (Criminal Contempt),A.G.A. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Tariq Naiyer,Himanshu Mishra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
We accept the apology of Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, who at the time of drafting the petition was the settler of the petition. He has conveyed that he had drafted paragraph No.19 of the petition out of absolute inadvertence. Chhote Lal and Sobran Singh have mentioned certain facts, which are incorrect.
We take a lenient view as Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad has conveyed to us that such mistakes would not be committed in future and he states that he would ask his clients or his briefing Advocates to correct the paragraph No.19 of the petition. We also close the proceedings in the matter with a warning.
The application stands disposed of .
Notice discharged.
We are thankful to Shri Sudhir Mehrotra and Shri Himanshu Mishra for ably assisting us and we are much thankful to Shri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, who has conveyed to us that inadvertent mistake will be corrected.
Order Date :- 1.12.2021 LN Tripathi
In-Re Honourable Court
Chhote Lal
Sobran Singh
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Ajai Tyagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
