Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Omwati – Appellant
Versus
Lokesh M – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
This contempt application has been filed under Section 12 read with section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the opposite parties for violating and will fully disobeying the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short "NOIDA") as recorded in the order dated 28.03.2023 read with orders dated 17.03.2023 and 26.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No.8228 of 2023.
2. The applicant, before this Court, had filed Writ-C No.8228 of 2023 against NOIDA claiming that without acquiring land of the applicant being Khasra No.1018 and 1019, situated at Village Baraula Tehsil Dadri District Gautam Buddh Nagar, the opposite parties had included such land for sale of building plots by it.
3. The matter was taken up on 17.03.2023 and the Division Bench directed the counsel for the opposite parties to seek instructions in the matter, and posted the matter as fresh on 28.03.2023 and following order was passed:-
Civil contempt requires willful disobedience to a court order or undertaking; mere statements by counsel do not constitute contempt if no undertaking was given.
Civil contempt requires willful disobedience, which was not established as the counsel's statement did not constitute an undertaking.
The jurisdiction of the High Court to punish a person for committing contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction and quasi-criminal in nature. It has to be sparingly exercised, and only in cases wher....
The court clarified that it cannot compel compliance beyond the actual possession of land by the State, emphasizing the importance of accurate representation of land possession.
The court emphasized that any person, whether a party to the suit or not, who obstructs the implementation of court orders can be held liable for contempt of court.
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC requires strict proof of willful disobedience of injunction as penal provision; High Court under Article 227 refrains from reappreciating evidence absent perversity or grave inju....
A clear and categorical court order must be complied with; ambiguity cannot excuse non-compliance, as established in contempt proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
