B.R. Kundal Vs. Vinod Gupta and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11576 of 2000
Petitioner: B.R. Kundal
Respondent: Vinod Gupta and Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11576 of 2000
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 24, 2001
Head Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 with Constitution – Articles 226, 136 – Directions issued by High Court, not complied with – Time given to comply and in event of noncompliance, respondent to present himself – SLP filed – Several opportunities given – No conclusive report coming forth. Held that High Court orders not complied with, hence, no grounds to interfere. (Para 4)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 with Constitution – Articles 226, 136 – Directions issued by High Court, not complied with – Time given to comply and in event of noncompliance, respondent to present himself – SLP filed – Several opportunities given – No conclusive report coming forth. Held that High Court orders not complied with, hence, no grounds to interfere. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Suraj Prakash Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (JT 2000 (5) SC 413) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 31st May, 2000 in COA(SW) No. 81 of 1999.
3. Having found that the order of the High Court in S.W.P. No. 409 of 1997 dated 29th June, 1998, which appears to have become final, has not been complied with, the High Court gave an opportunity to the state to comply with the said order and directed that in the event of non compliance, the respondent therein shall present himself in court on July 15, 2000. It is against that order that the special leave petition is filed.
4. On 13th July, 2000 this Court stayed the contempt proceedings before the High Court. The case was adjourned on several dates of hearing but it is not brought to our notice as to whether the order of the High Court has been complied with. On August 3, 2001, on the representation of the learned advocate general of the state the exercise pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta’s case has been completed and he would like to verify whether the respondents got the benefit of the order and report the same within two weeks. The case was adjourned and is listed today. Learned counsel for the appellant now prays for further time to report the matter. We are not inclined to grant any further time. In the circumstances, we have no other option but to conclude that the order of the High Court in the said writ petition has not been complied with, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge.
The special leave petition is dismissed with costs.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to file appeal against the order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 31st May, 2000 in COA(SW) No. 81 of 1999.
3. Having found that the order of the High Court in S.W.P. No. 409 of 1997 dated 29th June, 1998, which appears to have become final, has not been complied with, the High Court gave an opportunity to the state to comply with the said order and directed that in the event of non compliance, the respondent therein shall present himself in court on July 15, 2000. It is against that order that the special leave petition is filed.
4. On 13th July, 2000 this Court stayed the contempt proceedings before the High Court. The case was adjourned on several dates of hearing but it is not brought to our notice as to whether the order of the High Court has been complied with. On August 3, 2001, on the representation of the learned advocate general of the state the exercise pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta’s case has been completed and he would like to verify whether the respondents got the benefit of the order and report the same within two weeks. The case was adjourned and is listed today. Learned counsel for the appellant now prays for further time to report the matter. We are not inclined to grant any further time. In the circumstances, we have no other option but to conclude that the order of the High Court in the said writ petition has not been complied with, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge.
The special leave petition is dismissed with costs.
