Vakity Sushma Vs Sri Ajith Kumar Nair

As the Contempt Case is quasi-criminal in nature, the burden lies on the petitioner to prima facie show that despite her approaching the respondent to issue a letter of intent, the latter has refused to issue the same and violated the order of this Court. The least that is expected of the petitioner before filing a Contempt Case is to issue notice to the respondent calling upon him to implement the order of this Court. In view of the failure of the petitioner to follow this procedure, I am not inclined to entertain this Contempt Case.

¶18

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to first approach the respondent for the letter of intent and in the event, he refuses to issue the same, the petitioner is permitted to issue a legal notice to the respondent. Despite such legal notice, if the respondent has not implemented the order of this Court, the petitioner shall be free to file a fresh Contempt Case.

¶19

_______________________ (C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶20

24^th April, 2014 LUR

Vakity Sushma v. Sri Ajith Kumar Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakity Sushma v. Sri Ajith Kumar Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Loyola Academy

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Having its Office Vs Loyola Academy (a Society Registeredf Under Andhra

Nirmala Vimala Vs To Whomsoever, It May Concern