Dismissed
Nikhil Kalita v. Partha Pratim Mazumdar
Gauhati HCCont.Cas(C)/348/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
GAHC010030272017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
What the court decided
AI extract
GAHC010030272017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010030272017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 348/2017
1:NIKHIL KALITA
S/O- LATE GOBINDA KALITA, R/O- H NO.2, NEAR RUPNAGAR, P.ORUPNAGAR, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUPM, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:PARTHA PRATIM MAZUMDAR
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASSAM STATE TEXT BOOK PRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION CORPORATION LTD., PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
O R D E R
04.04.2018
Heard Mr. R Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.R Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent contemnor.
By the order dated 07.01.2016 in WP(C) No.1105/2011, a direction was issued for payment of the fixed remuneration to the petitioner for the period 08.05.2001 to 25.11.2010. This contempt petition was preferred on the assertion of non compliance of the said direction.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this contempt petition, the required amount had been paid to the petitioner.
Page No.# 2/2
In view of the above, no further adjudication is required in this contempt petition.
Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
NIKHIL KALITA
PARTHA PRATIM MAZUMDAR
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
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