Contempt petition alleging respondent's disobedience of orders to vacate premises. Respondent stated the premises were vacated; petitioner confirmed and withdrew the petition. Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
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.
$~43
Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Joe Sebestian & Mr. Akshat Singh, Adv. (through VC).
versus
MOHD YASIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Jain, Mr. Deepak Mayur, Ms. Kriti Kumari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
O R D E R
% 15.09.2025
“1. issue appropriate directions initiating contempt of court proceedings against the Respondent for the wilful disobedience of the order dated 23.05.23 and 31.01.24 passed by this Hon’ble court in W.P. (C) No. 4839 of 2013; and,
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 18/09/2025 at 12:07:02
AMIT SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/ nk/sp
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 18/09/2025 at 12:07:02
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated for wilful disobedience of prior orders regarding vacation of premises?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
St Stephens College
Mohd Yasin
Amit Sharma
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
