Contempt application against an SDO for non-compliance with a writ court direction under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code. The compliance affidavit showed the application was decided, so no contempt was found; the contempt application was dismissed and the recall application rejected with costs directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47937
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 241 of 2024
Applicant :- Premnath Opposite Party :- Ram Kewal Tripathi, Sub Divisional Officer, Judicial, Amethi Counsel for Applicant :- Shankar Lal Pandey,Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prabhakar Tiwari
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(Order on Recall Application)
(Order on Contempt Application)
the agriculture land of the applicant and except the land in question, the applicant does not have any land for his survival.
Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Mohd. Sharif
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contempt was made out given the respondent's affidavit of compliance with the writ court's direction to decide the Section 24 application.
Whether the recall application against the cost imposed on the respondent should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Premnath
Ram Kewal Tripathi, Sub Divisional Officer, Judicial, Amethi
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
