This single-day order dismissed a contempt application against an SDM. The court held that failure of the presiding officer, attributed to counsel absenteeism due to a Bar strike, did not constitute willful disobedience warranting contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt application dismissed.
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:149724
Court No. - 1
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6026 of 2024
Applicant :- Shardedu Kumar Rai @ Shadendra Opposite Party :- Ramanuj Shukla, S.D.M. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Rai,Om Prakash Rai
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present contempt application has been filed pleading violation of the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Writ C No. 26275 of 2022.
Apart from the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate willful disobedience by the presiding officer of the order passed by this Court and the fact that the decision of the case has been held up because on most of the dates fixed in the case, the counsel for the parties did not appear as the members of the Bar were abstaining from judicial work, the writ Court has itself noted that failure of the presiding officer to comply with the order dated 06.09.2022 shall not make him liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The contempt application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Vipasha
Digitally signed by :- VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Referred¶7
Shardedu Kumar Rai @ Shadendra
Ramanuj Shukla
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
