The court held that since no specific order was passed by the court directing the Railway Authorities to take steps, no contempt was committed by their inaction. The petitioner's request for interim directions is reserved for renewal.
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.
spb/
11cp272-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 272 OF 2016
Lopesh Shantilal Vora … Petitioner. V/s. Union of India & Ors. … Respondents.
Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. T. J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,JJ.
DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2016 P.C. :
We have perused the order passed by this court dated 10th June, 2016, wherein the learned ASG had made a statement that the Western Railway Authorities will look into the matter and take appropriate steps. According to the Petitioner this has been done for short time and not thereafter. In our view, it cannot be said that the said Railway Authority has committed a contempt since there is no specific order passed by this court. Reserving the right of the Petitioner to renew his request for interim directions of this court, contempt petition is disposed of.
(MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,J.) (V. M. KANADE,J.)
1/1
Borey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is contempt of court based on the Railway Authorities' failure to act on a statement made by the ASG in the absence of a specific court order.
Lopesh Shantilal Vora
Union of India
V. M. Kanade
Mrs. Swapna Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
