The court dismissed a contempt application for want of prosecution after the applicant's advocate withdrew the brief without pursuing the matter, noting case categorization as non-adjournable.
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.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 391 of 2016
Applicant :- M/S Reliance Motors Through Its First Partner Rama Kant Sing
Opposite Party :- Sada Kant And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Puneet Chandra
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Shri Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Surya Kant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the brief of the present case has been taken back by the applicant, therefore, he will not pursue the case.
2. Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for opposite parties placed the order of Division Bench dated 09.05.2024 passed in Special Appeal No.99 of 2024, in which, it is observed that before proceeding, the question of limitation should be decided first.
3. Accordingly, list this case in the month of July, 2024.
Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Gaurav/-
Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present contempt application should be allowed in the face of the applicant's reluctance to pursue the case.
M/S Reliance Motors Through Its First Partner Rama Kant Sing
Rajeev Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
