9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 523 - HC - Indian LawsContempt application - punishing the opposite party for willful disobedience - Held that - Once this Court has directed the Board to pass a reasoned and speaking order the Board could not wash of its hand saying that legal issues are involved and matter is sub-judice. In his submission it amounts to willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 7.8.2014. Whereas Sri Mehta submits that the order of the writ Court has been complied with in its letters and spirit. The parties wants to make further submissions. As prayed list on 28th October, 2015. Matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard before this Court.
Issues involved: Contempt application for willful disobedience of court order.
In this judgment, the main issue revolves around a contempt application filed for the willful disobedience of a court order dated 7.8.2014 in a specific case. The court had directed the Central Board of Excise and Customs to decide on certain representations within four months. However, the opposite party passed an order on 18.12.2014 stating that due to legal issues being sub-judice, they would not provide clarification as directed. The petitioner argues that this amounts to willful disobedience of the court's order. The petitioner's counsel highlighted specific paragraphs from affidavits to support their argument. They pointed out that the opposite party's decision not to issue clarification despite the court's order to pass a reasoned and speaking order was a clear act of disobedience. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that once the court had given a directive, the opposite party could not evade compliance by citing legal issues as an excuse. On the other hand, the opposite party's counsel contended that they had complied with the court order both in letter and spirit. They expressed the parties' intention to make further submissions on the matter. The court decided to list the case for further hearing on a specified date, ensuring that the matter would not be considered tied up or part-heard before the court.
|
