Contempt petition regarding maintenance of bank guarantee was not pressed by the petitioner as it was closed following developments, including furnishing of the guarantee.
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 FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.402/ 2013
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corp vs.
Vineet Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Date of Order : 04.12.2013
HON ' BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AMI TAVA ROY HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for petitioner.
Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on instructions, that the respondents, in compliance of the operative directions contained in the judgment and order dated 19.08.2009 passed in D.B.Civil Misc.Application No.23745/ 2009 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.777/ 2006 etc., have meanwhile furnished the Bank guarantee in terms of Clause (i) (ii) contained therein for the period ending upto 30th June, 2014. He submits that this petition in view of these developments at this stage is not pressed. It is closed as such.
( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) ,J. ( AMI TAVA ROY) ,C.J.
Mohit
M/ 48
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.
The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corp
Vineet Kumar Gupta
Amitava Roy
Veerendra Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
