High CourtsDivision Bench(2015) 04 J&K CK 0008

Asgar Hassan Samoon vs Mohammad Ramzan Wani

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 13 April 2015 · Citation: (2016) 4 JKJ 534

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Attar and Mr. B.S. Walia, JJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
LPASW No. 42 of 2015 Caveat No. 381 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 273 words

Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. (Oral) - This LPA is directed against order dated 04.03.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt

Petition No.182/2010 c/w Contempt Petition No.563/2014. The learned Single Judge after referring to the operative part of order passed in the

writ petition as also order dated 28.03.2014 passed in contempt petition was of the prima facie view that the Court orders have not been complied

with. The Registrar Judicial was directed to issue show cause notice to the respondents calling upon them as to why they shall not be punished for

contempt of Court. They have been provided opportunity to file reply.

2.

In our considered view, this LPA is not maintainable. In terms of Contempt of Courts Act, 1997, there is specific provision for filing of appeals

against the orders passed. An LPA can be filed against the order passed in contempt petition only when learned Single Judge issues fresh

directions.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Contempt Petition the learned Single Judge has

issued fresh directions.

4.

We have perused the said order which is reproduced in the impugned judgment. In the said order the learned Single Judge has not issued fresh

directions. Even otherwise, order dated 28.03.2014 has attained finality having not been challenged in appropriate proceedings.

5.

The appellants have been given opportunity to file reply. They were at liberty to raise all the issues about the competence of the contempt

proceedings initiated against them.

6.

For the above reasons, we hold that this LPA is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IAs.