The Court stayed the appearance date to permit the appellant to withdraw the appeal regarding non-maintainability under Contempt of Courts Act while seeking liberty to approach for execution remedies.
Liberty granted to withdraw the appeal and seek remedies under Section 144 CPC.
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.
$~5
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through : Sh. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate. versus C.L.JAIN WOOLEN MILLS ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Rajesh Rawal, Advocate, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R % 05.02.2016
Learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw the present appeal on being pointed out that it is not maintainable because Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 applies only when the order of punishment is in issue. At the same time, given that the appellant is aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge made on 07.11.2013, he seeks liberty to agitate his grievance vis-a-vis recovery of the amount pursuant to proceedings for execution of decree which was ultimately set aside.
In the circumstances, the appellant is at liberty to seek its remedies – including under Section 144 CPC. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2016/ajk
Union of India
C.L.Jain Woollen Mills
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
