The single judge dismissed a contempt application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution for non-appearance, concluding the petitioner was no longer interested in proceeding.
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.
29-09-2022 Item no.9 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction Appellate Side
CPAN No.537 of 2003 Itaberia Bazar Committee
-vs-
Mr. G.D. Gotam & Ors. arising out of WPA No.12090 of 2001
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 March 21, 2003, sought for punishment of the alleged contemner/respondent concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated April 26, 2002 passed by this court in WP No.12090(W) of 2001.
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 dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 215 of the Constitution of IndiaApplied¶9
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Itaberia Bazar Committee
Mr. G.D. Gotam & Ors.
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
