Santosh Varma v. Universal Prime Aluminium Ltd & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Nov 2005
Outcome
Dismissed
perspective, this application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. I am aware that this court by order dated October 14, 2005 has already issued show-cause notice to the applicant as to why action under provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be resorted to against him. Those proceedings will be proceeded…
Judgment
Mr.M.P.Vashi for applicant. Mr.U.V.Nikam APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2005. DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2005. DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2005. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :
Mr.Vashi states that applicant has not contacted him for giving instructions. The fact remains that the applicant has not complied with the undertaking given to this court in terms of Consent order invited on 5th April, 2005. On this count alone, the application deserves to be dismissed.
Operative part
I am aware that this court by order dated October 14, 2005 has already issued show-cause notice to the applicant as to why action under provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be resorted to against him. Those proceedings will be proceeded with in accordance with the law. Viewed in this perspective, this application is dismissed.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: perspective, this application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Nov 2005.
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.