Petitioner filed a contempt application for non-compliance of a 2002 order. Application remained unpressed and was dismissed for non-appearance, indicating lack of interest.
Application for punishment for contempt 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.10 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction Appellate Side
CPAN No.600 of 2003 Md. Belal
-vs-
Sri Nandadulal Seth
arising out of WPA No.1347 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 filed on March 3, 2003, sought for punishment of the alleged contemner/respondent concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated March 12, 2002 passed by this court in WP No.1347(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
Md. Belal
Sri Nandadulal Seth
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
