Parmanent v. CONTEMNERS :1
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
s/o Shri B.Tripathi, aged about 42 years, constable no. 658 posted at ,^&^^yea ^•••^'^^^-^ poli ^v*'" . ^^ lice station Chitagupha, Dantewara, Dist. bantewara (C.G.) PIN .494556 Parmanent r/o village Khutha, post office Jaitwara p.s. Jaitwara District Satna [M.P.] Versus
1.. X. CONTEMNERS :1; Mr. N.K-Ashawal, (RESPONDENTS) l/o Not kno^'aged about 54, \[\\^ Posted as:- The Secretary Home beportment [police], State of C.G. D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantrafaya, P.S. Civii Lines Raipur [C.^.J.PIN 492001. Vi ;>'
Mr. Indrjeet Shakerbadhee, ^7<TNot kno<g aged about 55, V»/t3 Posted as:- The Secretary Home beportment [police], State of M.P. Vllabhbhawan, Mantralaya, P.S.M.P.Nagar, Bhopal [C.G.] PIN 462011. CONTEMPT PETITCON U/A 215 OF THE ^^ CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA r/w SECTCON 14 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. Contemot Case (0) No. 4$9 of 2012 PETiTJONER Krishna Kumar Tripathi. Versus RESPONDENTS Mr. N.K. Ashawal and anothor. Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRt PRASHANT KUMAR1V!ISH?%A. J. ORAL ORDER (07/01/2013) On 04/05/2005 the following order was passed by this Court in W.P. No. 237/2004:- !n fhe fii^t snstance. "Hawng heard leamed counse! for the parti^, having regani fc> the facts and cacuimtanc^ of the and todklng ft> ffte !imited request madfe by feamerf counsel for ffte petftlonsm, the peffffonere, the petWoners are aSowed to make a fepreseflfaffon fc> mspondent No.1 through respond^nte No.
2 & 3. petltionefs shouid make th^r representa^on to r^ponctent No.2 within one month from today, in tum, respondent Ato.2 after recelpt of the same shali foward it to respowfent No.3 wiffi its commente writhin three months from the date of receipt csf the representaVon, awS in tum, respondent No. 3 agafn sha!! fwward ffie same to respondent No.1 vwfff its comments wifftin afK^her three months fftereof, and u matety, respondent No.1 affwconsldering the rwonwmndaSons of responctenfe No.2&3 and the request of ffte pet^ion^s shoifld appropriate order wlthin anothy three months thereof, m accordance with law. 144YA the dlrections aforesa^, ?he in view of this ofder, M.(W.)P. No. 209/2004 a/$o stands ^amfe cSspwedaf. cffeposecfof," (2) Learned counsel the j^titjoner would sutrfilt hte representation has not yet been deoided. It ia to be seen that petitjoner's representation was to be decjded within a totaf period of ten motiths, The said period expired in Mlarch 2006, hwvever, the present oontempt petttion has been fiied on 05/12/2012. •^. (3) Section 20 of the Cootempt of Coyrte Aot, 1971 provides that no Court shatl Snitiate any proceedings of contempt. either on its own motion or otherwjse, after the expiry of a perlod of one year from the date on whlch the contempt js alSeged to have been comniitted.
Sn the present respondents have atlegediy started oommlttiog conterfjpt siroe tVSareh 2006< This contempt petition, havjng beetr preferred after more 6 14 years from the said date, it js apparentiy barred ynder Seotion 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (4) Aceordingly, the contempt petition is dlsmissed as barred under ^ Section20oTtheAct,1971. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.