The High Court at Calcutta dismissed a contempt application filed by the petitioner against the respondent for non-compliance of a prior court order. The application stood dismissed for non-appearance by the petitioner, indicating a lack of interest in proceeding.
The contempt application was 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.10
Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.1415 of 2003 Soumen Maity -vs-
Dusmanta Nariala
arising out of WPA No.2712 of 2003
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 September 11, 2003, sought for punishment of the alleged contemner/respondent concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated February 17, 2003 passed by this court in WP No.2712(W) of 2003.
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 the contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ought to be pressed by the petitioner for punishment of the respondent for non-compliance of the court order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Soumen Maity
Dusmanta Nariala
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
