Dismissed

Smt Anita Kothari v. Rajeev Swarop and Another

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2014CMAP/136/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench dismissed an application seeking recall of an earlier order dismissing a contempt petition. The Court held that the observations in the earlier order did not impinge on the merits of the petitioner's case regarding an underlying order and invited no reasonable apprehension of prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Application for recall of the order dated 18-4-2014 in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.309/2012 dismissed.

Smt Anita Kothari Vs Rajeev Swarop and Another — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Smt. Anita Kothari Vs. Mr. Rajeev Swaroop & Another (S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.136/2014)

¶3

September 19, 2014.

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶5

Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep S. Shekhawat, for the petitioner.

¶6

BY THE COURT :

¶7

This miscellaneous application has been filed for recall of the order dated 18-4-2014 passed by this court in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.309/2012.

¶8

It has been submitted that albeit while dismissing the contempt petition the petitioner was granted liberty to agitate her dissatisfaction with the order dated 3-7-2012 (wrongly mentioned as 7-7-2012) before the competent court as a fresh cause of action in accordance with law, yet the observations by this court elsewhere in the order dated 18-4-2014 have the potential of jeopardising the petitioner's case even before its filing.

¶9

The apprehension of counsel for the petitioner as expressed in the course of arguments is unwarranted. While passing the order dated 18-42014 this court had referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006)1 SCC 613] to delineate the limitation of the jurisdiction of the court in a contempt petition. The reference to the merits of the contention of respondents while passing the order dated 18-4-2014 was only with the intent of

¶10

¶11

determining as to whether the order dated 3-7-2012 could be construed as one being malafide or recklessly passed with the active intent of denying to the petitioner the benefits of the directions of this court in the underlying writ. There is thus no occasion to apprehend and argue that the observations by this court in its order dated 18-4-2014 would impinge on the merits of the petitioner's claim in the event of a challenge to the order dated 3-7-2012 being laid before a competent court. Had it been so liberty granted by this court to lay a fesh writ petition against the order dated 3- 7-2012 would be redundant and otiose. There is no reason to attribute such a vacuous order to this court. It is however made clear by way of abundant caution, that in the event of a challenge to the order dated 3-72012 no observation of this court while dismissing the contempt petition shall prejudice the petitioner's case.

¶12

Consequently, I find no force in the application for recall of the order. It is accordingly dismissed for the reasons detailed herein above.

(Alok Sharma), J.

arn/

All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.

¶17

Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.

Smt Anita Kothari v. Rajeev Swarop and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anita Kothari v. Rajeev Swarop and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Kumar Vs Om Prakash Meena and Others

Chandra Prakash Alias Chandya Vs Hem Chand Soni and Another

Dashrath Chand Lodha Vs M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financ

Bhagawat Vs Raman

Chandra Singh Rawat Vs Ashok Sampatram and Others

Pawan Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs State Ayurved Departmentors