https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311734 Mere judicial error or inadequate consideration of cited precedents does not constitute contempt unless there is clear wilful disobedience, deliberate breach, or contumacious conduct supported by mens rea. The Bombay HC found that the complained-of lapses, including silence on authorities and insufficient reasoning on jurisdiction and procedure, showed negligence or error in judicial work rather than contempt under Article 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No contempt action was warranted against the judicial officer, though the Court noted prior administrative counselling and directed continued monitoring and caution in future performance. en-us Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:26:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311734 Mere judicial error or inadequate consideration of cited precedents does not constitute contempt unless there is clear wilful disobedience, deliberate breach, or contumacious conduct supported by mens rea. The Bombay HC found that the complained-of lapses, including silence on authorities and insufficient reasoning on jurisdiction and procedure, showed negligence or error in judicial work rather than contempt under Article 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No contempt action was warranted against the judicial officer, though the Court noted prior administrative counselling and directed continued monitoring and caution in future performance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311734