A single judge dismissed a contempt petition as premature. The petitioner complained of the respondents' alleged refusal to refund a security deposit per a common judgment, but the court noted the deadline for compliance was still future-dated.
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.47/2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. R. Dutta, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Ms. M. Chakraborty, Adv.
18.09.2017.
Heard Mr. R. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. M. Chakarborty, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondents.
In this contempt petition, the petitioner is complaining of the alleged refusal of the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the common judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.1095/2016. It may be noted that the judgment dated 10.02.2017 was carried to appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which by the order dated 29.08.2017 passed in WA No.18/2017 & other connected cases dismissed the appeal(s) with the direction that the respondents should refund the security deposit to the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from that date i.e. 29.08.2017. Irrespective of what had happened in the meantime, the latest deadline given by this Court for compliance with the order of this Court for refund of the security deposit is yet to be expired. 2(two) months w.e.f 29.08.2017 will be over by 29.10.2017.
In my opinion, this contempt petition is, therefore, premature and is, accordingly, dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
d.dey
Cont. Cas (c) No.47 /2017
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition complaining of non-compliance with a prior refund order is premature because the compliance deadline had not yet expired at the time of hearing.
Petitioner
Respondents
T. Vaiphei
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
