The petitioner submitted that the respondent had complied with a previous order dated 12.10.2015. Consequently, the pending petition and application were dismissed as not pressed.
Petition and application disposed of as not pressed.
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.
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RUBI KHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
versus
AMIT YADAV EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Mohd. Faisal, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
%
O R D E R 10.02.2016
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has taken action in terms of the order dated 12th October, 2015 and, therefore, the petitioner does not press this petition.
This petition and the pending application are disposed of as not pressed.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2016 rsk
RUBI KHAN
AMIT YADAV EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
J.R. MIDHA
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
