F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH v. Pandurang Kondbarao Pole & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where any contempt proceedings for want of willful or deliberate disobedience of any order is warranted rather the petitioner if not satisfied could have taken appropriate legal…
- Para 99. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no substance in the contempt petition and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedy as may be advised to him. (SINDHU SHARMA) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE…
Judgment
Mr. Huzaif Ashraf, Adv. vice S.F.Qadiri, Sr. Adv. Vs. Pandurang Kondbarao Pole & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: Mr. Hilal Ahmad Wani, AAG Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE O R D E R 19.09.2022
#2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is complaining about the non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 5th June 2010 passed in OWP No. 213/2007 Ghulam Nabi Bhat vs. State of JK & Ors.
#3. The aforesaid judgment attained finality as LPA and SLP against it were both dismissed.
#4. The petitioner filed CPLPA No. 17/2018 complaining about the disobedience of the said order. The said contempt was directed to be closed vide order dated 24th September 2020 in view of the fact that the learned DSGI informed that the judgment has been complied with.
#5. The court while closing the contempt petition directed the petitioner to seek revival of the contempt petition or to seek an appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law if not satisfied by the compliance order.
#6. Instead of reviving the above contempt proceedings, the petitioner has initiated fresh contempt proceedings alleging that the aforesaid judgment and order has not been fully complied with as the petitioner has not been paid interest as mandated by Section 35 of the Act.
#7. The document on record reveals that interest has been paid to the petitioner, but may not be to his satisfaction. CCP (D) No. 01/2021 Page 1 of 2
#8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where any contempt proceedings for want of willful or deliberate disobedience of any order is warranted rather the petitioner if not satisfied could have taken appropriate legal remedies that may be available to him in law as may be advised to him. Moreover, the petitioner could not have initiated the fresh contempt proceedings, but to have applied for the revival of the previous proceedings which were directed to be closed vide order dated 24th September 2020.
#9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no substance in the contempt petition and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedy as may be advised to him. (SINDHU SHARMA) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 19.09.2022 Altaf CCP (D) No. 01/2021 Page 2 of 2
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.