In a contempt petition, the Court noted the petitioner's satisfaction regarding the implementation of a prior order. The Court closed the petition without further inquiry and discharged the notice to the respondent.
Contempt petition closed; notice to respondent discharged.
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.
$~5
..... Petitioner
versus
PRAKASH MISHRA
..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, Sr. Central Government Counsel with Ms. Shalu Goswami, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
% 05.02.2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is satisfied
with the implementation of the order dated August 03, 2015. He states, on
the aspect of calculations, the petitioner has already made representations,
which are under consideration. I say nothing on that. Noting the statement,
I close the contempt petition. The notice to the respondent is discharged.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 05, 2018 /ak
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be continued given the petitioner's satisfaction with the implementation of the prior order.
S K HABIBUR REHMAN
PRAKASH MISHRA
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
