In this contempt petition, the court accepted the respondent's submission that a previous order was complied with via a reply dated 20th September, 2016. Consequently, the court disposed of the present petition as satisfied without substantive argument.
The contempt petition was disposed of as satisfied.
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.
$~18
M/S SOCIETY STANDING FOR ALL YOUTH MASS AWARENESS ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
SHASHIKANTA DAS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 03.10.2016
Learned counsel for the respondent states that the order dated 23rd March, 2016 passed in WP(C) 10600/2015 has been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner’s representation dated 23rd July, 2015 has been replied to vide letter dated 20th September, 2016. In support of his contention, he has handed over a photocopy of the reply dated 20th September, 2016. In view thereof, the present contempt petition is disposed of as satisfied.
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 03, 2016 NG
M/S SOCIETY STANDING FOR ALL YOUTH MASS AWARENESS
SHASHIKANTA DAS
MANMOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
