Petitioner sought contempt action for alleged non-compliance with an Armed Forces Tribunal order. Counsel could not show the Tribunal is a court within Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, and execution proceedings were already pending; the petition was dismissed without costs.
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.
28-CP-255-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 255 OF 2024
Col Naveen Nand Keswani ...Petitioner Versus Giridhar Armane & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Satendra Kumar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for the Respondent ‘A’ Panel counsel – UOI.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2024
P.C.:
Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADARDate: JAMADAR 2024.08.02 17:22:44 +0530
1 of 2
Sajakali Jamadar
28-CP-255-2024.doc
made, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that the Armed Forces Tribunal is a Court within the meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in view of which the contempt jurisdiction ought not to be invoked. Even otherwise proceedings are already been initiated by execution of the order of contempt which is alleged, considering which the petition is dismissed. No costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
2 of 2
Sajakali Jamadar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act can be invoked for non-compliance with an Armed Forces Tribunal order when execution proceedings are pending.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Col Naveen Nand Keswani
Giridhar Armane
Avinash G. Gharote
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
