Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [5] Rule
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [5] Rule
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    JAGDISH KAUR v. AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS.

    262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

    AT CHANDIGARH

    COCP-923-2022 Date of Decision :15.07.2022 Jagdish Kaur …Petitioner Versus

    Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors. ….Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia Present : Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aarushi Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyapal Jain, Additional Solicitor General with Ms. Shweta Nahata, Advocate for the respondents. ***

    B.S. Walia, J. (Oral)

    [1] Prayer in the petition is for initiating proceedings against the respondents for intentional and willful defiance of order, Annexure P/6 dated 13.09.2017 in CWP No.4281 of 2017 in case titled as Jagdish Kaur vs. Union of India and others.

    [2] A perusal of order, Annexure P/6 reveals that CWP No.4281 of 2017 was disposed of on the statement of learned counsel for UOI that the case of the petitioner for grant of Emergency Certificate to enable her to travel back from Australia to India would be considered within one month from the date of the order and on her return, if she completed all the necessary formalities, her plea for renewal of Passport would also be considered as per rules.

    [3] Learned Additional Solicitor General has filed status report in Court today. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who on perusal of

    1 of 2

    COCP-923-2022 [2] the same states that he is satisfied with the action taken by the respondents in terms of order, Annexure P/6 dated 13.09.2017 and that in the circumstances, the contempt petition may be permitted to be withdrawn.

    [4] In view of the position noted above, as well as the statement of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the contempt petition is disposed of as not calling for any action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

    [5] Rule discharged.

    (B.S. Walia) Judge

    15.07.2022

    'Amit' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

    Neutral Citation No:=2022:PHHC:081573

    2 of 2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    JAGDISH KAUR v. AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS.
    (Jul 15, 2022)