M/S Jhuria Readymade Centre v. Dilip Kumar Borah and 2 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners submitted compliance with the court order; the contempt petition was accordingly closed.
Petitioners submitted compliance with the court order; the contempt petition was accordingly closed.
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
GAHC010233892023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/639/2023
M/S JHURIA READYMADE CENTRE
A PROPRIETORIAL FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHIV MARKET, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MAHESH KUMAR JHURIA.
VERSUS
DILIP KUMAR BORAH AND 2 ORS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HANDLOOM, TEXTILES AND SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY6.
2:SAMIR SINHA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-6.
3:PARAGMONI MAHANTA DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILES ASSAM G.N.B. ROAD AMBARI GHY-781001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R K DUTTA, MR. U J SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR A CHALIHA (r-2), MR P NAYAK (r-2),MR. B GOGOI (r-2)
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
08.08.2024
Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Dhar and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsels for the respondents submit that the order has been complied with and as such, the contempt petition can be closed.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the contempt petition stands closed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
M/S JHURIA READYMADE CENTRE
DILIP KUMAR BORAH
SAMIR SINHA
PARAGMONI MAHANTA
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
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