Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

"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