The High Court at Calcutta dismissed a contempt application filed in 2003 for non-compliance of a 1998 order. The court held that the petitioner was no longer interested and the application stood dismissed for non-appearance.
Contempt application dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
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.
15-09-2022 Item no.8
Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.1110 of 2003 Rajendra Nath Mondal -vsSri Sukumar Habar & Anr.
arising out of WPA No.21006 of 1998
None …for the petitioner
To press the contempt application, none represents the petitioner.
The petitioner, by way of this contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India filed on July 2, 2003, sought for punishment of the alleged contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated November 24, 1998 passed by this court in WP No.21006(W) of 1998.
It appears that since filing of the contempt application, none moved to press it.
I feel that the petitioner is no longer interested to proceed with the application on hand.
Accordingly, the contempt application stands dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
[Rabindranath Samanta, J]
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a contempt application filed for non-compliance of a court order stands disposed of due to non-appearance of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Nath Mondal
Sri Sukumar Habar & Anr.
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
