Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

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 at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Contempt Petn.-filed In Feb.1994-No Order Passed For Issuance Of Notices--Section 20 Contempt Of Courts Act,1971 Also Barred-Contempt Petn. Dismissed.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Prem Navain Gupta Vs. R.K. Khanna & Others On 04/04/2004 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 232 OF 1994
CORAM : Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 50

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 232 Of 1994

Prem Narain Gupta And Others..............................Applicants
Versus
Shri R.K. Khanna And Another..............................Opp. Parties.
********
Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The Present Contempt Petition, Purporting To Be Under Section 10/12 Of The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971, Has Been Filed By The Petitioners-applicants, Inter-alia, Praying For Punishing The Opposite Parties For Having Committed Contempt Of This Court By Not Complying With The Order Dated 8-9-1993 Passed In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35760 Of 1993, Prem Narain Gupta And Others Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. And Others.

The Present Contempt Petition Was Filed On 1st February, 1994.

On 2nd February, 1994, The Following Order Was Passed On The Contempt Petition :

"The Applicant May File Supplementary Affidavit Clarifying The Averments Made In Para 18 Of The Affidavit.
List On 19th Feb.94."

Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 2nd February, 1994, The Case Was Listed Before The Court With The Office Report Dated 18th February, 1994, Which Is Quoted Below :

"In View Of Court's Order Dated 2-2-94 Supplementary Affidavit Has Not Been Filed So Far. The Case Is Put Up For Orders."

However, It Appears That No Order Was Passed On The Contempt Petition, And The Case Was Passed Over.

It Further Appears That No Supplementary Affidavit, Pursuant To The Said Order Dated 2nd February, 1994, Has So Far Been Filed On Behalf Of The Petitioners-applicants.

From The Above Narration Of Facts, It Is Evident That No Order Has So Far Been Passed Directing For Issuance Of Notices To The Opposite Parties On The Contempt Petition. 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 About 10 Years Since The Filing Of The Contempt Petition In February, 1994.

There Is Yet Another Aspect Of The Matter. Section 20 Of The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 Provides As Follows :

"20. Limitation For Actions For Contempt.--No Court Shall Initiate Any Proceedings For Contempt, Either On Its Own Motion Or Otherwise, After The Expiry Of A Period Of One Year From The Date On Which The Contempt Is Alleged To Have Been Committed."

In The Present Case, As Per The Averments Made In Paragraph 15 Of The Contempt Petition, The Contempt Is Alleged To Have Been Committed By The Opposite Parties In September / October, 1993

Keeping In View The Aforesaid Provisions Of Section 20 Of The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971, There Is No Occasion To Direct For Issuance Of Notices To The Opposite Parties On The Contempt Petition Now After A Lapse Of More Than 10 Years, Since The Alleged Commission Of Contempt By The Opposite Parties In September / October, 1993.

No Peculiar Circumstances Have Been Brought To The Notice Of This Court Persuading It To Direct For Issuance Of Notices On The Contempt Petition To The Opposite Parties At Such A Late Stage.

In View Of The Aforesaid Discussion, I Am Of The Opinion That The Contempt Petition Has Become Infructuous, And The Same Is Liable To Be Dismissed As Such.

The Contempt Petition Is, Accordingly, Dismissed As Having Become Infructuous.

Go to Navigation