Disposed¶6

Kehar Singh v. Nipun Jindal and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2025COPC/237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COPC No.237 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J., 1.4.2025): contempt petition alleging willful non-compliance with directions dated 4.1.2025 in Kehar Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (CWP No. 9685 of 2023) to decide representation within eight weeks; petition closed on counsel's stand, compliance ordered within two weeks, aggravation of contempt and revival liberty reserved.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed, with respondents-contemnors directed to comply with the directions of the judgment dated 4.1.2025 in CWP No. 9685 of 2023 within two weeks, failing which the contempt would stand aggravated and the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition for action against the erring officials. ¶6

Kehar Singh Vs Nipun Jindal and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No.237 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kehar Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 4.1.2025, rendered in CWP No. 9685 of 2023, titled Kehar Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶3

¶4

2. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of

¶5

the respondents, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

¶6

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel or the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondentscontemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.

¶7

April 1, 2025 (manjit)

Kehar Singh v. Nipun Jindal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kehar Singh 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

Poonam Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Harish Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Maan Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Neelam Sharma Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

Hira Nand Vs the State of Hp and Another