Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"Prima Facie Case for Initiating Criminal Proceedings": Allahabad Court Restrains Advocate Santram Rathore from Practicing Due to Contempt of Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the court has issued a notice to Advocate Santram Rathore, restraining him from entering the court premises or practicing in the District Judgeship. The Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi presided over the case, stating that there is a "prima facie case for initiating the criminal proceedings under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" against Rathore.

The case originated from a reference made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Pilipbit, who reported that Rathore had made derogatory comments against the court and accused the presiding officer of corruption. The reference also mentioned that Rathore tried to obstruct court proceedings and used abusive and derogatory language.

The court has issued a notice to Rathore, asking him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for "creating obstruction in the proceedings of the court, misbehaving the court, using abusive and derogatory language, scandalizing the court etc."

The notice also stipulates that Rathore may file a reply through counsel after the service of the notice. The Registry has been directed to send a copy of the reference written by the presiding officer along with the notice.

In light of the persistent acts of alleged contempt, the court has imposed immediate restrictions on Rathore. He is barred from entering the court premises or practicing in the District Judgeship until the next date of listing. He is also required to be present in court on the next date fixed in the matter.

Sri Sudhir Mehrotra has appeared for the Court, and his name will be shown in the cause list whenever the matter is listed next. The Registry has also been directed to hand over a complete set of records to Sri Mehrotra within three weeks.

The case is set to be listed after the service of notice, marking a crucial juncture in the ongoing contempt proceedings against Advocate Santram Rathore.

Suomoto

In Re vs  Santram Rathore 

Latest Legal News