The High Court at Calcutta dismissed a complaint for contempt filed under the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution because the petitioner failed to press 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.
22-09-2022 Item no.7 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction Appellate Side
CPAN No.47 of 2000 Raj Kumar Dhali -vsBhupal Chandra Patra arising out of WPA No.21318 of 1999
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 January 11, 2000, sought for punishment of the alleged contemner/respondent concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated December 12, 1999 passed by this court in WP No.21318(W) of 1999.
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 pressed given the petitioner's non-appearance?
Raj Kumar Dhali
Bhupal Chandra Patra
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
