This Court dismissed a contempt petition filed against Respondents for alleged disobedience of orders regarding the sale of property. The Court held that previous orders applied only to specific rooms and not the entire farm, and no case for contempt was made out.
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.
$~21
DR HANS U NAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Sr.Advocate with Mr.K.Sharma and Mr.Amiet Andlay, Advocates.
versus
JOHN NAGAR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.Anupam Lal Das, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ujjwal Jha, Mr.Rohan Gupta and Mr.Anirudh Singh, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 04th November, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
Cont.Cas(C) 1723/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2024 13:42:43
Page 1 of 4
the learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The statement made by learned senior counsel for the Petitioner is accepted by this Court the Petitioner is held bound by the same. Accordingly, the averments made in paragraph 13.4 of the present contempt petition are deleted.
Signature Not Verified
Cont.Cas(C) 1723/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2024 13:42:43
Page 2 of 4
sale deed has been executed in respect of the entire Farm No.8 including the said two servant quarters/rooms and therefore, the Respondents are in violation of the doctrine of lis pendens.
“6. On a reading of the three orders referred to above, it is apparent that these orders were confined only to the two rooms mentioned in the order dated 13th February, 2019 and not to the subject property in question as Mr. Yadav, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would like us to believe. It appears that the present contempt petition has been filed on a misreading of the aforesaid orders. Moreover, we are satisfied with the statement given by Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned senior counsel and are of the opinion that the present petition can be disposed of on the said statement.”
Signature Not Verified
Cont.Cas(C) 1723/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2024 13:42:43
Page 3 of 4
appears to be nothing to substantiate the contention of the Appellant that the Respondents have deliberately sold off those two servant quarters/rooms against which status quo order has been passed.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2024 KA
Signature Not Verified
Cont.Cas(C) 1723/2024
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:11.11.2024 13:42:43
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is wilful disobedience of the Court's order warranting contempt proceedings.
Whether the Respondents sold the specific property to which the status quo order applied.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CONT.CAS(C) No.1565/2024Referred¶5
Dr. Hans U. Nagar
John Nagar
Manmohan
Tushar Rao Gedela
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
