CON.CASE(C) No. 866 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ss. 11, 12
- Constitution of India art. 215
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the undertaking given by Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, in ouropinion, we need not have to proceed with this Contempt Case. Accordingly, we pass the following: CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 866…
Judgment
Con. Case(C).No. 866 of 2007(S) 3. LIEUTENANT GENERAL B.S.DHALIWAL, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ, POST OFFICE, NEW DELHI-110011 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ...................................................................................CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 866 OF 2007...................................................................................Dated this the 22nd October, 2007J U D G M E N TH.L. Dattu, C.J.:Alleging that the respondents have not complied with positive directionissued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 191 of 2006 dated 03.08.2006, thecomplainant is before us in this Contempt Case filed under sections 11 and 12of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
Notice of this Contempt Case was ordered to be issued and servedon the respondents. They have entered appearance.
The learned Addl. Solicitor General, Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, on instruction, would submit thatthe respondents shall comply with the orders and directions issued by thiscourt, within a period of two months from today and therefore, requests thiscourt that further proceedings in the Contempt Case may be dropped for thepresent.
An affidavit of undertaking, in this regard is also filed by therespondents. The said affidavit of undertaking is placed on record.
In view of the undertaking given by Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, in ouropinion, we need not have to proceed with this Contempt Case. Accordingly, we pass the following: CONTEMPT CASE (C) No. 866 OF 2007 2 O R D E Ri)Further proceedings in this Contempt Case are dropped for thepresent. ii)The affidavit of undertaking filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 isplaced on record. iii)Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are granted two months' time fromtoday to comply with the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.191 of 2006 dated 03.08.2006.iv)Liberty is reserved to the complainant to approach this Court, ifneed arises in future. v)All other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE.K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 11, 12; Constitution of India — art. 215.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Oct 2007. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
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.