Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Pathak v. Purshottam Agarwal and Others

Rajasthan HC24 Sept 2015CCP/694/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, disposed of a contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The judge granted liberty to the petitioner to assail the order relating to the respondent's decision on the petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to assail the decision taken by the respondents on the petitioner's representation.

Mukesh Kumar Pathak Vs Purshottam Agarwal and Others — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.694 of 2013.

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1579 of 2012 Mukesh Kumar Pathak Vs. Purshottam Agarwal & Others

¶5

Date of Order ::: 24.09.2015

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

¶7

Mr. N.K. Singhal, Counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.M. Saxena, A.A.G., for the respondents

¶8

¶9

In the instant contempt petition preferred under

¶10

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a grievance has been made by the petitioner that the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.1579/2012 has not been complied with.

¶11

Mr. J.M. Saxena, the learned Additional Advocate

¶12

General appearing for the respondents, has submitted that in terms of the order dated 22.02.2012 representation filed by the petitioner has been decided.

¶13

Mr. N.K. Singhal, the learned counsel appearing for

¶14

the petitioner, has submitted that representation has been wrongly decided by the respondents and it is not legally justifiable. Counsel further submitted that the decision on the representation of the petitioner has been conveyed to him today itself and not earlier thereto.

¶15

¶16

In view of above, counsel appearing for the

¶17

petitioner, has submitted that he may be permitted to assail the decision taken by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶18

I find merit in the alternative submission made by

¶19

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶20

Consequently, the present contempt petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the order passed on the representation of the petitioner, which purportedly has been conveyed to him today.

¶21

[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] J.

¶22

ashok/Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Ashok Kumar Songara/Sr.P.A.cum J.W.

Mukesh Kumar Pathak v. Purshottam Agarwal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Pathak v. Purshottam Agarwal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohan Lal Pargi and Others Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Ramesh Chandra Kharadi Ors. Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Aftab Ahmed and Ors. Vs State

Bhuwnesh Kumar Meena Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Others

Archana Alias Antima Vs Rakesh Kumar Gaur

Hanuman Sahay Jat Vs R S R T C and Ors.