A petition for a contempt order sought punishment of respondents for non-compliance of a previous writ order. The petitioner failed to press the application. The court dismissed the contempt application due to the petitioner's inactivity and disinterest.
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.
19-09-2022 Item no.16 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
CPAN No.81 of 2001 Nripendra Nath Sarkar
-vs-
The Central Bank of India through its Chairman & Ors.
arising out of CO No.10234(W) of 1996
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 January 17, 2001, sought for punishment of the alleged contemners/respondents concerned in the writ petition for non-compliance of an order dated September 22, 2000 passed by this court in CO No.10234(W) of 1996.
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 filed for non-compliance of a court order requires punishment when the petitioner failed to press the application for an extended period.
Nripendra Nath Sarkar
The Central Bank of India through its Chairman & Ors.
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
