DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
ICICI Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rashmi Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition and facts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court discussions on service notice issues. (Para 7) |
| 3. critique of contempt notice issuance. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. plaintiff's argument against contempt. (Para 9) |
| 5. jurisdiction and standards for contempt. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. final order and its implications. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Amit Bansal, J.
CM No. 2057/2022 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 36/2022 & CM No. 2056/2022 (for stay)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 2nd December, 2021 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-06, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (Commercial Court) in CS (COMM.) No. 2857/2021, whereby show cause notice has been directed to be issued to the petitioner Bank (hereinafter `plaintiff'), to be answered and endorsed through the Chairman, as to why criminal contempt should not be initiated against him for overreaching the process of the Court.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the commercial suit leading to the present petition are as follows:
(i)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.