✦ Bombay High Court · 09 Dec 2011

Contempt Petition No. 375 of 2011 · Bombay High Court · 2011

Contempt Petition No. 375 of 2011A S OKA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

Petition is disposed of

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. In any case, though belatedly, there is a compliance made with the direction issued by this Court, hence, this is not a case where action can be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Judgment

..... Mr. Satish Upadhyay i/b. Mr. M. V. Kini & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 9, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The breach alleged is of direction contained in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 3rd October, 2011 by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned AGP appearing for the contemnors states that in terms of the directions of this Court, a speaking order has been passed on 30th November, 2011 which has been communicated to the petitioner.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that though the time fixed under 2 78cp375-11 the aforesaid order of the Division Bench to decide the representation was extended, the order is not passed even within the extended time.

Operative part

3.

In any case, though belatedly, there is a compliance made with the direction issued by this Court, hence, this is not a case where action can be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Petition is disposed of.

(A.S.OKA, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 09 Dec 2011. The bench was A S OKA.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Contempt Petition No. 375 of 2011). ← Search more judgments