Petitioner filed a contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 for non-compliance with a previous order. The court dismissed the application for non-appearance, noting the petitioner was no longer interested in proceeding.
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.9
Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.705 of 2000 Kumud Kumar Chaturvedi
-vs-
Sri Shib Shankar Chakraborty & Anr.
arising out of
CO. No.16845(W) of 1995
None …for the petitioner
None represents the applicant to press the contempt application on call.
By way of this contempt application filed on April 18, 2000 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for punishment of the contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated August 25, 1995 passed in CO. No.16845(W) of 1995.
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 filed by the petitioner should be proceeded with given the petitioner's lack of active pursuit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subrata Bhattacharyya
Kumud Kumar Chaturvedi
Sri Shib Shankar Chakraborty
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
