CASE BRIEF: NAND LAL BALWANI

case brief, case summary

CASE LAW: Nand Lal Balwani, S/O Late … vs Unknown

CASE NO.:

Suo Motu Contempt was decided on February 26, 1999.

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS:

 AIR 1999 SC 1300, 1999 (1) ALD Cri 587, 1999 (1) ALT Cri 186, 1999 CriLJ 2032, JT 1999 (2) SC 61, RLW 1999 (3) SC 465, 1999 (1) SCALE 645, (1999) 2 SCC 743, 1999 1 SCR 937, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 934

JUDGES ON THE BENCH:

 Dr A. S. Anand, C. J., M. Srinivasan, N. Santosh Hedge, J.J

ACTS IN THE CASE:

Section 14 contempt of courts act 1971sec

Contempt of courts act

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the Supreme Court of India, the respondent’s attorney threw shoes and yelled abuse. He was subject to both contempt and professional misconduct investigations.

One day when going to the court proceeding were going on. Me. Nand Lal Balwani, who claims to be an advocate enrolled with the Bombay Bar association on 1995 and had apparently no case on the board of this bench. Shouted slogans in the open court and thereafter hurled his shoe towards the court thereby interrupting the court proceedings.

He was informed that his actions were aimed at intimidating the court and causing inference in the conduct of judicial proceedings and amounted to gross contempt of this court. He was informed of the charge. The supreme court sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and pay a fine of Rs.2000 in default his apology was denied.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Was the court right in punishing him?

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:

Mr Nand Lal had submitted his apology for his behaviour. He had no intention of causing any disrespect to the honourable court in any manner lowering the dignity of this honourable court. But the apology tendered by Mr Nand Lal does not appear to be at all Bona fide and genuine in view of his attitude exhibited in court during his questioning.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:

Keeping in view of the seriousness of the offence committed by the contemnor it is necessary to improve deterrent punishment. In the supreme court, he tendered an unqualified apology which was disallowed. The supreme court observed that the apology was not bonafide in nature and seems to have been made only to escape punishment. The court thereafter did not accept the apology.

He was sentenced to four months of simple jail and a fine of 2000 Rupees by the Supreme Court after it found him guilty of contempt of court.

Additionally, the DC of BCI found him guilty of professional misconduct and ruled that his name be struck from the list of the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Councils.

Authors/Editors

,

Leave a Reply