An application for punishment for contempt was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta because the petitioner failed to appear and press the application, indicating a lack of interest in proceeding.
The contempt application stands 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.
21-09-2022 Item no.6 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.31 of 2000 Sadiqur Rahaman Biswas
-vsv-
Sri Sunil Sen & Ors.
arising out of CO. No.13099(W) of 1993
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 dated January 6, 2000, sought for punishment of the alleged contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated March 4, 1997 passed by this court in CO No.13099(W) of 1993.
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 should be allowed in the absence of the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sadiqur Rahaman Biswas
Sri Sunil Sen & Ors.
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
