NLSUI OPAC header image

A study on criminal contempt emphasizing on scandalisation of the court

By: Contributor(s): Publication details: BangaloreBangalore NLSIU 2004Description: 322 p. ; 25 cmSubject(s): Online resources:
Contents:
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES OF CASES; LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS; CHAPTER-l INTRODUCTION; Methodology; Scope, Objectives and Significance of the Study; The scheme of the Chapters; CHAPTER-2 DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT; CHAPTER-3 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF CONTEMPT LAW; CHAPTER-4 PRESENT POSITION IN ENGLAND ABOUT SCANDALIZING THE COURT; CHAPTER-5 CANADIAN CHARTER AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURT REGARDING THE SCANDALIZING THE COURT; CHAPTER-6 PRESENT POSITION OF SCANDALISING THE AUSTRALIA; CHAPTER-7 PRESENT POSITION OF SOUTH AFRICA ON SCANDALISING THE COURTS; CHAPTER-8 POSITION OF LAW OF CONTEMPT IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGARDING SCANDALIZING THE COURT; CHAPTER-9 POSITION IN INDIA REGARDING THE SCANDALIZING THE COURT CASES RELATED TO IMPROPER MOTIVE; 1. Hira Lal Dixit v. State ofU.P AIR 1954 se 743 (Vol 43); 2. Namboodaripadv. T. Narayanan Namibyar1970 (2) sec 325; 3. Perspective Publication Ltd,v. State of Maharashtra(1969) 2; SeR 779 AIR 1971 se 221; 4. In re, S. Mulgaokar AIR 1978 se 727; 5. In Re Shri Sham Lal, (1978) 2 sec 479; 6. Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs The Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh (1981) se 755; 7. National Anthem is conscientious group Vis Mohammed Younus AIR 1987 SC 151: 1987 (3) SCC 89. 173; 8. P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker, and others 1 AIR 1988 SC 1208; 9. Padhma Hasini alias Padmapriya v. C.R. Srinivas (1999) 8 189 SCC 711; CASES RELATED TO PARTIALITY; 1. T. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P (1997) 7 SCC, p. 535; CASES REI4TED TO INCOMPETENCY; 1. Bathinam Ramakrishna Reddy Vs State of Madras AIR 1952 198 SC 149,1952 Cr. L.1. 832~ 1952 SCR425: 1952 SCJ 137; 2. Brahma Prakash Sharma VIs state of U.P.; 3. UP Sales Tax Service Association Vs Taxation Bar Association Agra (I 995) SEC 716 4. State Vs Nityananda Mahaputra AIR 1960 Ori 132; CASES RELATED TO SCURRLIOUS ABUSES; 1. Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. the Registrar of Orissa High Court and another (1974) I SCC 374; 2. M.R. Parashar and Others vIs Dr. Farooq Abdullah and others (1984) 2 SCC 343; 3. In re Vinay Chandra Mishra Case 1995(2) SCC:AIR 1995 (2) 2348; 4. Ravichandran Iyer vIs Justice A.M. Bhatta Charjee and others 1995 SCC (Cri) 953; 5. Dr. D. C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India, (1996) 2 SCC; 6. Narmada Bacho Anclolan v. Union of India and others, (1999) 8 SCC 308; 7. J.R Parashar Advocate and others v. Prasad Bhushan; 8. Suo motto Arundati Roy; 9. In re: S.K. Sundram Suomotto, (2001) 2SCC171,; 10 CONCLUSIONS ALONG WITH SUGGESTIONS; BIBLIOGRAPHY; • Articles; • Books.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Status Barcode
Dissertation . Not for loan LLM056

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES OF CASES; LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS; CHAPTER-l INTRODUCTION; Methodology; Scope, Objectives and Significance of the Study; The scheme of the Chapters; CHAPTER-2 DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT; CHAPTER-3 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF CONTEMPT LAW; CHAPTER-4 PRESENT POSITION IN ENGLAND ABOUT SCANDALIZING THE COURT; CHAPTER-5 CANADIAN CHARTER AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURT REGARDING THE SCANDALIZING THE COURT; CHAPTER-6 PRESENT POSITION OF SCANDALISING THE AUSTRALIA; CHAPTER-7 PRESENT POSITION OF SOUTH AFRICA ON SCANDALISING THE COURTS; CHAPTER-8 POSITION OF LAW OF CONTEMPT IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGARDING SCANDALIZING THE COURT; CHAPTER-9 POSITION IN INDIA REGARDING THE SCANDALIZING THE COURT CASES RELATED TO IMPROPER MOTIVE; 1. Hira Lal Dixit v. State ofU.P AIR 1954 se 743 (Vol 43); 2. Namboodaripadv. T. Narayanan Namibyar1970 (2) sec 325; 3. Perspective Publication Ltd,v. State of Maharashtra(1969) 2; SeR 779 AIR 1971 se 221; 4. In re, S. Mulgaokar AIR 1978 se 727; 5. In Re Shri Sham Lal, (1978) 2 sec 479; 6. Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs The Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh (1981) se 755; 7. National Anthem is conscientious group Vis Mohammed Younus AIR 1987 SC 151: 1987 (3) SCC 89. 173; 8. P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker, and others 1 AIR 1988 SC 1208; 9. Padhma Hasini alias Padmapriya v. C.R. Srinivas (1999) 8 189 SCC 711; CASES RELATED TO PARTIALITY; 1. T. Deen Dayal v. High Court of A.P (1997) 7 SCC, p. 535; CASES REI4TED TO INCOMPETENCY; 1. Bathinam Ramakrishna Reddy Vs State of Madras AIR 1952 198 SC 149,1952 Cr. L.1. 832~ 1952 SCR425: 1952 SCJ 137; 2. Brahma Prakash Sharma VIs state of U.P.; 3. UP Sales Tax Service Association Vs Taxation Bar Association Agra (I 995) SEC 716 4. State Vs Nityananda Mahaputra AIR 1960 Ori 132; CASES RELATED TO SCURRLIOUS ABUSES; 1. Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. the Registrar of Orissa High Court and another (1974) I SCC 374; 2. M.R. Parashar and Others vIs Dr. Farooq Abdullah and others (1984) 2 SCC 343; 3. In re Vinay Chandra Mishra Case 1995(2) SCC:AIR 1995 (2) 2348; 4. Ravichandran Iyer vIs Justice A.M. Bhatta Charjee and others 1995 SCC (Cri) 953; 5. Dr. D. C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India, (1996) 2 SCC; 6. Narmada Bacho Anclolan v. Union of India and others, (1999) 8 SCC 308; 7. J.R Parashar Advocate and others v. Prasad Bhushan; 8. Suo motto Arundati Roy; 9. In re: S.K. Sundram Suomotto, (2001) 2SCC171,; 10 CONCLUSIONS ALONG WITH SUGGESTIONS; BIBLIOGRAPHY; • Articles; • Books.