An appeal against dismissal of a contempt petition with costs was held not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, following D.N. Taneja and Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank; the appeal was dismissed with liberty to seek other remedies.
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.
$~61
MAMTA KAPOOR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. Ms. Sudershani Ray, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
% 14.02.2024 1. Yesterday, we raised an issue on the maintainability of the appeal because of the fact that the contempt petition was dismissed with cost of ₹25,000/- to be paid to the respondent.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2024 /ds
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:40:32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against dismissal of a contempt petition with costs to the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶2
(1988) 3 SCC 26 · Who else cites this
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal NandaRelied on¶2
(2006) 5 SCC 399 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagmohan Kapoor
Mamta Kapoor
V. Kameswar Rao
Saurabh Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
