The court dismissed the contempt case as the underlying interim order was vacated and the writ petition dismissed as infructuous, rendering the order dissolved.
Contempt Case dismissed; no costs;
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.143 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
This contempt case is filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order dt.18.01.2013 passed in W.P.M.P.No.1268 of 2013 in W.P.No.1046 of 2013 by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the said interim order was vacated on 31.02.2013 by this Court and on the said day elections to Gurrappa Naidupalem Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited was held; that an election petition has been filed subsequently; and that the writ petition itself was dismissed as infructuous on 09.04.2013.
3. In view of the fact that the order whose implementation is sought in this contempt case has been vacated on 31.02.2013 and the writ petition itself was dismissed as infructuous on 09.04.2013, the interim order stood dissolved.
4. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that the said interim order dt.18.01.2013 has to be implemented. In view of this, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.
5. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications filed in this Contempt Case shall stand dismissed.
19th June 2013
________________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
scs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can sustain a claim for implementation of an interim order that was subsequently vacated.
Whether the petitioner can be liable for contempt when the underlying proceeding was dismissed as infructuous.
Petitioner
Respondent
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
