Single judge dismissed a contempt petition challenging an interim order restraining creation of third party interest. The court held the petition not maintainable as the remedy lies under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
+No costs. Liberty to apply under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC if entitled.
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.
$~22
RAM NIWAS TYAGI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Adv.
Versus
SUMITRA KAUR & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM No.3448/2016 (for exemption)
CONT.CAS(C) 83/2016
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2016 ‘gsr’..
CONT.CAS(C) 83/2016
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt petition is maintainable for alleged violation of an interim order restraining creation of third party interest.
Whether appropriate remedy for violation of an interim injunction is under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC or contempt petition.
Whether the Station House Officer was properly impleaded in the contempt petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bimal Chandra Sen Vs. Kamla MathurRelied on¶15
Bimal Chandra Sen Vs. Kamla Mathur 22 (1982) DLT 33 · Who else cites this
Anand Kumar Vs. Haldiram BhujiawalaRelied on¶15
Anand Kumar Vs. Haldiram Bhujiawala 146 (2008) DLT · Who else cites this
Safal Kumar Mitra Vs. Smt. Chandralekha MitraRelied on¶16
Safal Kumar Mitra Vs. Smt. Chandralekha Mitra MANU/WB/0210/2014
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Niwas Tyagi
Sumitra Kaur & Ors
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
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
