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

2015 Supreme(HP) 1267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ.
Jyoti Bala - Petitioner.
VERSUS
S.K.B.S. Negi and another - Respondents.
COPC No.786 of 2015.
Decided on : 27.10.2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Nemo

Standing to file a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act is limited to parties involved in the original proceedings.

Headnote:

Contempt of Courts Act - Jurisdiction - Compliance with Court Directions

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance with the Court's directions in a previous judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner was not a party in the writ petition and therefore may not have the right to file the contempt petition. The petitioner was advised to seek appropriate remedy through other proceedings.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act and the petitioner's standing to file the contempt petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court dismissed the contempt petition as the petitioner was not a party in the original writ petition and advised the petitioner to seek remedy through appropriate proceedings.

Final Decision: The Contempt Petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (for short, the Act), on the ground that the respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court contained in the judgment, dated 22nd November, 2012, passed in CWP No.4872 of 2012, titled Anurag Singh vs. State of H.P. and another.

2. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner herein was not a party in the writ petition. Thus, it is a moot question whether the petitioner has rightly preferred the instant contempt petition. The answer is in the negative. In case the petitioner was aggrieved, she could avail appropriate remedy by resorting to appropriate proceedings.

3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has already filed a writ petition and the same is pending adjudication.

4. Viewed thus, the Contempt Petition is dismissed.


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