Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior order. Counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition stating the order had been complied with. The Court dismissed the petition as not pressed and discharged the rule.
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.
119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP-2808-2024 Date of Decision: September 10, 2024
SHEEL KUMAR
........Petitioner
Versus
HITESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: M r. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.
M r. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate f o r the respondents. ****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
B y way of present petition fil e d under Section 12 of th e Contempt of C ourts Act, 1971, prayer ha s been made for initiation o f contempt pro c eedings against the respo n dent on account of allege d willful non-co m pliance of order dated 09. 0 5.2024 passed by this Cour t in CWP-2304 - 2020.
L e arned counsel for the pe t itioner does not press th e present petiti o n as order dated 09.05.2024 has been complied with. Di s missed as not pressed.
R u le discharged.
| 10.09.2024 Tejwinder |
( |
HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE |
|---|---|---|
| Whether speaking/reasone d |
Yes/No | |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
TEJWINDER SINGH 2024.09.11 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be disposed of due to compliance of the impugned order?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHEEL KUMAR
HITESH KUMAR
ANOTHER
HARKESH MANUJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
