The High Court disposed of two letters patent appeals challenging interlocutory orders in contempt proceedings. Since the main appeals were dismissed due to inordinate delay and the orders had been complied with, the Court held no case existed for interference and the appeals were disposed of.
The appeals were disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.358 of 2017 In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1087 of 2016
======================================================
Appellant/s
Versus
Kriti Kumari, S/o Sri Keshav Prasad, R/o Village- Kawakol, PO- Kawakol, P.S.- Kawakol, District- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2017 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13159 of 2013
======================================================
The State Of Bihar & Ors
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Maheshwar Prasad Singh & Anr
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 358 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 09-10-2017
These appeals have been filed challenging the interlocutory application passed in contempt proceedings.
Patna High Court LPA No.358 of 2017 dt.09-10-2017
2/2
However, the main appeal, namely L.P.A. Nos.362 of 2017 and 360 of 2017 have been dismissed by this Court on account of inordinate delay in filing of the appeals.
That being so, now with regard to an interlocutory order passed in a contempt proceeding after the order passed the writ petition has been complied with and the appeals filed have been dismissed, no case is made out for interfering into the matter.
In case any adverse order or punishment is imposed upon the appellants in the contempt proceedings, they shall have liberty to assail the order by filing an appeal and, therefore, at this interlocutory stage when the main appeals have been dismissed and the orders have been complied with, no useful purpose would be served by keeping these matters pending.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)
K.C.Jha/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 11.10.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with an interlocutory order in contempt proceedings when the main appeals have been dismissed.
Whether an appeal against a potential future punishment in contempt proceedings can be heard at the interlocutory stage after the main appeals are dismissed.
Whether the appeals should be disposed of when the orders complained of have been complied with and no useful purpose would be served by pending them.
The State of Bihar & Ors
Kriti Kumari
Maheshwar Prasad Singh & Anr
Rajendra Menon
Anil Kumar Upadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
