Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOTI LAL versus A.P.S.CHAUHAN S.M.,U.P.S.R.T.C.KANPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Moti Lal v. A.P.S.Chauhan S.M.,U.P.S.R.T.C.Kanpur - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 1158 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 996 (1 October 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.48

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1158 of 1995

Moti Lal .....Petitioner/Applicant.

Versus

Sri A.P.S. Chauhan and another                   ......Opposite Parties.

*****

Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

List has been revised.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant is not present.

The present Contempt Petition has been filed under  Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is, inter-alia, prayed that the Opposite Parties be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by allegedly disobeying the order dated 24th March, 1994 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11459 of 1994, Moti Lal Vs. Managing Director, U.P. State  Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and others.

The present Contempt Petition was filed on 9th August, 1995.

By the order dated 11th August, 1995, the Contempt Petition was directed to be listed along with the record of the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11459 of 1994. The said order dated 11th August, 1995 is quoted below :

"List this Contempt Petition along with the record of Writ Petition No. 11459 of 1994 for admission before the appropriate Bench in the week commencing 28th August, 1995."

Pursuant to the said order dated 11th August, 1995, the case was put up before the Court on 28th August, 1995. On the said date, i.e., 28th August, 1995, the Court directed the case to be listed in the next cause list along with the record of the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11459 of 1994.

Pursuant to the said order dated 28th August, 1995, the case was put up before the Court on 5th September, 1995. On the said date, i.e., 5th September, 1995, the Contempt Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, as none was  present, even when the case was taken up in the revised list. The said order dated 5th September, 1995 is quoted below :

"List revised. None present.

It is dismissed for non-prosecution."

It further appears that an application being Civil Misc. (Restoration) Application No. 50192 of 1995 was, thereafter, filed on behalf of the petitioner-applicant, inter-alia, praying for recalling the said order dated 5th September, 1995.

By the order dated 19th October, 1995 passed on the said Civil Misc. (Restoration) Application No. 50192 of 1995,  the said order dated 5th September, 1995 dismissing the Contempt Petition in default, was recalled and the Contempt Petition was directed to be listed in the week commencing 6th November, 1995. The said order dated 19th October, 1995 is quoted below :

"Order dated 5-9-95 dismissing the Contempt Petition No. 1158 of 1995 in default is recalled.

List it in the week commencing 6th November, 1995."

A perusal of the order-sheet shows that pursuant to the said order dated 19th October, 1995, the case was put up before the Court on 10th November, 1995. On the said date, i.e., 10th November, 1995, the case was directed to be listed in the next cause list along with the record of the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11459 of 1994.

It further appears that the case was, thereafter, put up before the Court on a few dates, but no order was passed on the said dates.

From the above narration of facts, it is evident that no order has so far been passed on the Contempt Petition directing for issuance of notices to the Opposite Parties. As such, no notice has so far been issued to any of the Opposite Parties on the Contempt Petition.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by directing for issuance of notices to the Opposite Parties now after a lapse of more than 9 years since the filing of the Contempt Petition in August, 1995.

The Contempt Petition has evidently become infructuous, and the same is liable to be dismissed as such.

The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.

The record of the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11459 of 1994, which is appended to the present Contempt Petition, will be detached and sent to the concerned  Section.

Dt.01-10-04/AK/L


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.