The Bombay High Court dismissed a Criminal Contempt Petition, holding that the matter involved an application for Advocate General's consent which was rejected, constituting a case unfit for the Court's suo motu Criminal Contempt jurisdiction.
Criminal Contempt Petition dismissed.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders
of Coram, appearances, Court’s .
orders or directions and .
Registrar’s orders .
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner.
Ms.P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ.
DATED : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C.:
1.The Petitioner has applied for
the consent of the Advocate General
that has been rejected. In our
opinion, this is not a fit case for us
to exercise our suo motu Criminal
Contempt jurisdiction. Hence the
Criminal Contempt Petition is
dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should exercise suo motu Criminal Contempt jurisdiction in this case.
The Petitioner
The State
F.I. Rebello
S.J. Vazifdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court