The High Court dismissed the petitioner's contempt application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of a prior order due to the petitioner's failure to press the application.
The contempt application stands 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.
20-09-2022 Item no.11
Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.71 of 2000 Ranjit Ghosh -vsvAnil Verma & Anr.
arising out of WPA No.15233 of 1998
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 dated January 12, 2000, sought for punishment of the alleged contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated September 16, 1998 passed by this court in WP No.15233(W) of 1998.
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 lack of appearance by the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjit Ghosh
Anil Verma & Anr
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
