In a contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner sought punishment for non-compliance with a prior order. The High Court, finding the petitioner no longer interested in proceeding and noting the non-appearance of the petitioner, dismissed the application.
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.
09-09-2022 Item no.7
Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Appellate Side
CPAN No.418 of 2000 Sri Ram Gopal Jain
-vs-
Sri Harak Chand Pandya & Anr.
arising out of WPA No.19026 of 1998
None …for the petitioner
None represents the applicant to press the contempt application on call.
By way of this contempt application filed on March 3, 2000 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner has sought for punishment of the contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated December 3, 1998 passed in WP No.19026(W) of 1998.
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 dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner despite his initial filing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Ram Gopal Jain
Sri Harak Chand Pandya
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
