Kulwant Kumar v. Nipun Jindal and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2025COPC/1071/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition; COPC No.1071 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 16.10.2025; Kulwant Kumar v. Dr. Nipun Jindal; HRTC; compliance with judgment; office order dated 14.10.2025 of Managing Director, HRTC; mandate contained in judgment stands complied with; Rajinder Kumar Vs. HRTC and Anr., CWP No.2110 of 2019, decided 22.10.2019; direction to consider and decide; case rejected; no contumacious conduct; nothing remains to be adjudicated; proceedings closed; liberty to file appropriate proceedings qua surviving grievance.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. ¶¶15

Kulwant Kumar Vs Nipun Jindal and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings closed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action, after considering the petitioner's case in light of the judgment in CWP No.2110 of 2019 and rejecting it, amounted to contumacious conduct in violation of the mandate of this Court's judgment.

¶¶13

Court's answer

On carefully perusing office order dated 14.10.2025 vis-a-vis the directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, the Court found merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the mandate stood complied with.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since the only direction was to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment in CWP No.2110 of 2019 (Rajinder Kumar Vs. HRTC and Anr.), and the respondents, after having so considered the case, rejected it, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

Nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings; the same are closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt (COPC No.1071 of 2025, Kulwant Kumar v. Dr. Nipun Jindal & Anr., High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; oral order dated 16.10.2025): Petitioner alleged violation of the mandate in the judgment dated 22.10.2019 in CWP No.2110 of 2019, Rajinder Kumar Vs. HRTC and Anr. Respondents' counsel placed on record office order dated 14.10.2025 issued under the signatures of the Managing Director, HRTC, Shimla. On perusing that order vis-a-vis the directions, the Court found merit in the respondents' contention. Since the only direction was to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the 2019 judgment, and the respondents having done so and rejected the petitioner's case, no action of the respondents could be said to be contumacious. Proceedings were closed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any.

Kulwant Kumar v. Nipun Jindal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Kumar v. Nipun Jindal and Anr.

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

Shiv Dutt Vs Hrtc and Others

Kalpana Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prashant Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reena Rai Vs the State of Hp and Others

Radhika Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. (Unit Rauri) Vs the State of Hp and Others