The High Court of Delhi dismissed the present contempt petition after the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to withdraw it before the Bench.
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.
$~54
versus
GURDARSHAN KAUR BEDI & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R % 04.04.2018
CM No. 12728/2018 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 233/2018
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging violation of order dated January 24, 2001 whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein challenging the order of trial court allowing the amendment in the site plan. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents despite rejection of the amendment of the site plan has filed on record of the trial court an
amended plan. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-10 (at page 72) of the paper book.
Suffice to state, the said allegation cannot be a subject matter of contempt jurisdiction. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seek to withdraw the contempt petition. The same is dismissed as withdrawn.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
APRIL 04, 2018 /aky
RAM SINGH & ORS
GURDARSHAN KAUR BEDI & ORS
V. KAMESWAR RAO
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
