High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

"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