The Court dealt with a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of an order dated 08.12.2008. Finding that the petition was filed in March 2013, well beyond the permissible time limit, the Court held it was barred by time and dismissed the same.
Petition dismissed as barred by time.
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.
CONTC No.384 of 2013
02. 19.08.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel f
or the State.
This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of th
e order of this Court dated 08.12.2008, passed in W.P.(C) No.16226 of 2008.
ime.
As the order has been passed as back as in December, 2008 and
the contempt petition has been filed in March, 2013, the same is barred by time.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed as barred by t
S.C. Parija, J.
Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J.
2
uks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition is barred by time due to the delay between the order dated 08.12.2008 and the filing in March 2013.
S.C. Parija
Dr. D.P. Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court