Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PARWINDER KAUR versus DEVINDER NATH SHARMA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Parwinder Kaur v. Devinder Nath Sharma & Ors. - COCP-744-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1132 (23 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.744 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION:28.2.2006

***

Parwinder Kaur

..PETITIONER

VS.

Devinder Nath Sharma and others.

..RESPONDENTS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR,

Present:- Mr.Amit Chopra,Advocate

for the petitioner.

***

JUDGMENT:

On 31.5.2005 this Court had passed an interim order in CWP No.9353 of 2005 to the effect that if the services of the petitioner have not been terminated by then, the same were not be terminated till further orders. As per own showing of the petitioner, an order dated 30.5.2005 had already been passed and the services of the petitioner had been terminated w.e.f. 1.6.2005.

By way of compensation, in lieu of the notice period, a cheque dated 30.5.2005 was also sent to the petitioner. According to the aforementioned order, the petitioner was to stand relieved on 31.5.2005. When the matter came up for consideration on 19.7.2005, the hearing was deferred to enable the petitioner to file an additional affidavit to show that the order passed by the Division Bench was communicated to the respondents on 31.5.2005. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed. Along with affidavit a copy of the order (A-1) has also been placed on record which shows that the certified copy of the order dated 31.5.2005 was issued by this Court on 1.6.2005. However, reliance has been placed on Annexure A-2 which was admittedly supplied to respondents on 2.6.2005.

In view of the above, there is nothing on record to show that any case for contempt has been made out or the respondent has violated the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.

February 28,2006 (M.M. KUMAR)

Jiten JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.