The Court observed that instead of issuing notice for contempt, the opposite party No.3 should be given one more opportunity to comply with a previous order within six weeks from the lockdown date.
No notice issued; opposite party given chance to comply within six weeks from lockdown date or face contempt findings.
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.601 of 2020
02. 01.06.2020 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of order of this Court dated 08.11.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No.20583 of 2019.
Considering the submission made, this Court observes that instead of issuing notice it would be appropriate to give one more opportunity to the opposite party no.3 to comply with the direction of this Court dated 08.11.2019, passed in W.P.(C) No.20583 of 2019 by taking effective steps within a period of six weeks from the date of lifting of lockdown, failing which, it will be construed to be deliberate violation of this Court’s order.
The CONTC stands disposed of.
It is the responsibility of the petitioner to serve copy of the order along with copy of the contempt petition on the competent authority within a period of ten days as undertaken.
Biswanath Rath, J.
uks
2
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the opposite party should be given one more opportunity to comply with the Court's prior order before issuing notice for contempt.
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
