-
MELBOURNE: Fourth India-Australia 2+2 Secretary-level Consultations - November 3, 2024
-
TORONTO: India’s response to diplomatic communication from Canada - November 2, 2024
-
NGERULMUD: Shri Harsh Kumar Jain concurrently accredited as the next Ambassador of India to the Republic of Palau - November 1, 2024
-
DHAKA: Statement on attack on Puja Mandap and desecration and damage to Hindu temples in Bangladesh - October 31, 2024
-
KINGSTON: Shri Subhash Prasad Gupta concurrently accredited as the next High Commissioner of India to St.Vincent and the Grenadines - October 30, 2024
-
STOCKHOLM: Dr. Neena Malhotra appointed as the next Ambassador of India to the Kingdom of Sweden - October 29, 2024
-
BEIRUT: Statement on recent developments in southern Lebanon - October 29, 2024
-
BANGKOK: Meeting of Prime Minister with Prime Minister of Thailand - October 28, 2024
-
NEW YORK: H1B Visa “Thing Of Past”: Union Minister Piyush Goyal After US Visit - October 28, 2024
-
MOSCOW: Prime Minister meets with the President of the Russian Federation - October 27, 2024
SINGAPORE CITY: Indian-Origin Lawyer In Singapore Says Judges Biased, Faces Contempt
SINGAPORE CITY: An Indian-origin lawyer in Singapore is facing contempt of court for interrupting judges during proceedings and allegedly terming them biased.
Ravi Madasamy, better known as M Ravi, will face contempt of court proceedings after applications for committal orders were made by Attorney-General Lucien Wong, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said on recently.
In a Facebook post, Mr Ravi said he was not surprised by the applications, and that he would address the court on the reasons for his conduct, the Channel News Asia reported.
The applications are related to Mr Ravi’s conduct during two separate court proceedings before the High Court and State Courts in November 2021.
The Attorney-General’s position is that the lawyer “acted in a manner that was contemptuous of the respective courts” in the two cases, AGC said.
This included “making unfounded allegations of bias against the judges” and “persistently interrupting the judges in the course of the proceedings”, it said.