Disposed¶18

Anita Parihar and Others v. Priyatu Mandal and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Oct 2024COPC/459/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition (COPC) closed as satisfied; non-compliance of judgment in CWP No. 5068 of 2013 dated 08.10.2014, affirmed in LPA No. 144 of 2015 dated 10.08.2023; Execution Petition No. 468 of 2023 disposed of as satisfied on 25.09.2024 upon release of due and admissible amount; notices to respondents discharged; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Anita Parihar & Ors v. Priyatu Mandal & Ors; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; decided 03.10.2024.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed taking note of the order passed in Execution Petition No. 468 of 2023; notices issued to the respondents discharged; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of. No substantive relief adjudicated in this petition. ¶18

Anita Parihar and Others Vs Priyatu Mandal and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance of the judgment in question should continue, given that the execution petition preferred to enforce the same judgment has been disposed of as satisfied.

¶17

Court's answer

Since the execution petition preferred by the petitioners for enforcement of the same decision was disposed of as 'satisfied' on 25.09.2024, noting that the due and admissible amount stands released in their favour, no purpose would be served in proceeding ahead with the contempt petition; the contempt proceedings are closed taking note of the order passed in execution petition No. 468 of 2023.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

¶18

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, COPC No. 459 of 2024, decided 03.10.2024 (Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua). Anita Parihar & Ors filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the decision dated 08.10.2014 in CWP No. 5068 of 2013 (Anita Parihar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others), as affirmed in LPA No. 144 of 2015 (State of Himachal Pradesh & Another Vs. Anita Parihar & Others) decided on 10.08.2023. On notice, the Advocate General placed on record the order dated 25.09.2024 in Execution Petition No. 468 of 2023, whereby the execution proceedings enforcing the same judgment were closed as satisfied upon release of the due and admissible amount to the petitioners. Holding that no purpose would be served in proceeding further, the court closed the contempt proceedings, discharged the notices issued to the respondents, and disposed of pending miscellaneous application(s). No monetary quantum is stated in this judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 459 of 2024 Decided on: 3^rd October, 2024

¶2

_________________________________________________________________ Anita Parihar & Ors ....Petitioners Versus Priyatu Mandal & Ors …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶3

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

¶4

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶5

____________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

Petitioners allege non-compliance of the decisions dated 08.10.2014, rendered in CWP No. 5068 of 2013 (Anita Parihar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others) as affirmed in LPA No. 144 of 2015 (State of Himachal Pradesh & Another

¶8

Vs. Anita Parihar & Others) decided on 10.08.2023.

¶9

2. On being put to notice, learned Advocate General

¶10

placed on record the order dated 25.09.2024, passed in

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

¶13

Execution Petition No. 468 of 2023 (Anita Parihar & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors), preferred by the petitioners for executing

¶14

the aforesaid judgment. The order reads as under: -

¶15

“Learned Additional Advocate General submits that due and admissible amount stands released in favour of the petitioners. Leaned counsel for the petitioners acknowledges this fact. Accordingly, these proceedings are ordered to be closed, as satisfied.”

¶16

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

¶17

submits that the respondents have not complied with the judgment in question.

¶18

4. Since the execution petition preferred by the petitioners for enforcement of the same decision was disposed of as ‘satisfied’ on 25.09.2024 taking note of the fact that due and admissible amount stands released in favour of the petitioners, no purpose will be served in proceeding ahead with this contempt petition. The contempt proceedings are accordingly closed taking note of the order passed in execution petition No. 468 of 2023. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶21

October 03, 2024 R.Atal

Anita Parihar and Others v. Priyatu Mandal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Parihar and Others v. Priyatu Mandal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hitanshu Jishtu and Another Vs Sanjay Ronta

M/S Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Lal Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Ajay Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another

Susheel Kumar Negi Vs Sudesh