This order dismissed a contempt petition due to the non-appearance of the petitioners, finding that the respondent had complied with the earlier direction to decide the representation.
The petition and application are dismissed in default due to non-appearance of petitioners.
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.
$~20
ASMAT ARA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Nemo.
Versus
MAJID DEV BHANDI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Ms. Swagata Bhuyan and Mr. Shiva Pandey, Advocates for respondent-GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
% 06.12.2018
Vide order of 21st December, 2017, direction was given to respondent to decide petitioners’ Representation.
Compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent along with communication of 11th May, 2018 (Annexure –R1) , which reveals that petitioners’ Representation has been rejected being without merit. Order of which contempt is alleged has been complied with.
There is no appearance on behalf of petitioners. Same was the position on the last two dates of hearing.
This petition and application are accordingly dismissed in default.
SUNIL GAUR, J
DECEMBER 06, 2018
r
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow or dismiss the contempt petition when petitioners are in default?
Asmat Ara & Ors.
Majid Dev Bhandi
Sunil Gaur
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
