SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Srivastava – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
Submissions :
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the order impugned is not an order, punishing the appellant for contempt, therefore, the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not maintainable in view of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Paragraph 11). He also relied upon the two Division Bench judgement of this Court in S.M.A. Abdi and another vs. Private Secretary Brotherhood and another, 2009 (4) UPLBEC 3106 and Tarun Kumar Agrawal vs. The Executive Engineer U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Meerut 2013 (101 ALR 46. He also supports the impugned order on merit.
3. Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is maintainable and he relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Subhawati Devi vs. R.K. Singh and others (Special Appeal No. 553 of 2003 decided on 19.
ECL Finance Limited vs. Harikishan Shankarji Gudipati and others
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda
Modi Telefibres Ltd. and Ors. vs. Sujit Kumar Choudhary and Ors.
Purshotam Dass Goel vs. Justice B.S. Dhillon
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association vs. S.C. Sekar and others
Tarun Kumar Agrawal vs. The Executive Engineer U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Meerut
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.