SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Chaalak Shakti – Appellant
Versus
GNCTD & Anr. – Respondents
CONT.APP.(C) 34 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Aman Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr.Abhinav Singh, Advocate, for the Respondents.

The assurance of the respondents regarding the timely passing of the order influenced the court's decision in disposing of the appeal.

Headnote:

exemption - setting aside of order - The court allowed the exemption subject to all just exceptions and disposed of the application. The appellant sought to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and initiate contempt proceedings against the Contemnors. The appeal was not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but the respondents assured the court that the order would be passed within two weeks, leading to the disposal of the appeal. The court made it clear that if the order was not passed within the time sought, the respondents would be held liable for contempt of court.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought setting aside of an order and initiation of contempt proceedings against the Contemnors for committing contempt of the judgment and order passed in a previous case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but disposed of the appeal based on the assurance of the respondents that the order would be passed within two weeks.

Issues: The issues involved setting aside of an order, initiation of contempt proceedings, and the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the assurance of the respondents that the order would be passed within two weeks, leading to the disposal of the appeal.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the court made it clear that if the order was not passed within the time sought, the respondents would be held liable for contempt of court.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM APPL. 31766/2023 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is accordingly disposed of.

CONT.APP.(C) 34/2023

3. Appellant seeks setting aside of the order passed by learned Single Judge in CONT.CAS.(C) 722/2023 and initiate contempt proceedings against the Contemnors and punish them for committing contempt of the judgment and order passed in W.P.(C) 4889/2023 on 18.04.2023.

4. Though present appeal is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Mr.Abhinav Singh, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondents and has assured this Court that pursuant to order dated 18.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 4889/2023, order shall be passed within two weeks from today.

5. In view of the assurance of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, appeal is disposed of.

6. We hereby make it clear that if the order is not passed within the time sought, the respondents shall be held liable for the contempt of Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top