The two-judge bench found no willful disobedience of a prior order based on an undisputed bank statement and closed the contempt petition, reserving the right for the petitioner to ventilate any grievance in other proceedings.
Contempt petition closed as there is no willful disobedience; petitioner may ventilate grievance in other proceedings.
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.
Cont. Cas(C) No. 15 /2017
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. B. N. Majumder, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. D. C. Nath, State counsel.
13.09.2017.
Mr. D. C. Nath, the learned State counsel drawing our attention to the Bank statement, submits that the order of this Court has been complied with. Mr. B. N. Majumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, dispute that the order of this Court has been fully complied with. In any case, on the basis of the Bank statement, the genuineness whereof is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We are satisfied that there is no willful disobedience to the order passed by this Court. It would be, however, open to the petitioner to ventilate his grievance in any other proceedings.
Resultantly, the contempt petition is accordingly closed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
d.dey.
Cont. Cas(C) No. 15 /2017 Page 1 of 1
Petitioner
State
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
