Dismissed

Mohan Chandra Balodi v. Piyush Kant Dixit

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2023SPA/116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Appeal challenging the closure of contempt proceedings by a Single Judge was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court relied on Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, holding that appeals against proceedings dropped or closed are not maintainable before a Division Bench under Section 19.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Mohan Chandra Balodi Vs Piyush Kant Dixit — Contempt of Court | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
0 1 .0 5 .2 0 2 3		SPA No. 116 of 2023 Hon’ble Vipin San gh i, C.J. Hon’ble Rak esh Th apliy al, J. 1. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellant.
		2. The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CLCON No. 53 of 2019 under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Single Judge has, by the impugned order, closed the contempt proceedings.
		4. The present Special Appeal is clearly not maintainable before this Court in the light of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which has received the interpretation by the Supreme Court in *Midn apor e Peoples’ Coop. Ban k Lt d. an d ot h er s v .* *Ch u n ilal Nan da an d ot h er s, ( 2 0 0 6 )* *5 SCC 3 9 9*. In paragraph no. 11 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly held that an appeal against a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, whereby the Court has dropped or closed the proceedings, would not be maintainable before the Division Bench. 5. Consequently, the present Special Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 6. It shall be open to the appellant to avail of such other remedy, as is available to him in law.

¶2

7. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) ( Vipin San gh i, C.J.) 0 1 .0 5 .2 0 2 3 0 1 .0 5.2 0 2 3 Rahul

Mohan Chandra Balodi v. Piyush Kant Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Chandra Balodi v. Piyush Kant Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achpal Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Shivam Mines and Minerals Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shivam Mines and Minerals Vs State of Uttarkhand

Mayank Bhardwaj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Annu Mehta Vs Principal Secretaty Urban Development Department Government of Uttarakhand

Dilbagh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand