Petitioner filed a contempt application for non-compliance of a prior order. The application was not pressed forward despite a notice to press. The single judge dismissed the application for non-appearance, assuming the petitioner was no longer interested.
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.
21-09-2022 Item no.8 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.77 of 2000 Smt. Kamala Roy -vsvSri Dulal Bhowmick
arising out of CO. No.10115(W) of 1991
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 December 21, 1999, sought for punishment of the alleged contemner/respondent concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated September 23, 1998 passed by this court in CO No.10115(W) of 1991.
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.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kamala Roy
Sri Dulal Bhowmick
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
