Johnson & Johnson Employees Union v. M/s. Johnson & Johnson Limited & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. fore Petitioner. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, A.G.P. for State. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO &&& CORAM: F.I. REBELLO R.V. MORE,JJ. R.V. MORE,JJ. R.V. MORE,JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2007 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2007 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Permission of the Advocate General as required under Section 15 of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 has not been taken. It is mandatory before filing a petition for criminal contempt. Considering that, the contempt Petition dismissed as non maintainable in view of failure to take permission of the Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971. . It is however, made clear that it is always open to the Petitioner if so advised to apply for permission and then take such steps in law to which they are entitled to. ((-2-)) . With the above observations, Petition stands disposed of. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.V. MORE,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.V. MORE,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.V. MORE,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempts of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 15.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Jan 2007. The bench was F I REBELLO, R V MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.