Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C)872/2015
RAJEEV SAUMITRA
Through:
Petitioner Mr.P.V.Kapur,Senior Advocate with Mr. Murari Tiwari,Advocate,Mr. Rahul Kumar,Advocate,Mr.Devesh
Gupta,Advocate,Mr.Vimal Nagrath, Advocate,Mr.Sidharth Kapur, Advocate,Ms.Kaveri Gupta, Advocate and Mr.Purav Mehta, Advocate.
NEETU SINGH
CONT.CAS(C)872/2015
RAJEEV SAUMITRA
Through:
Petitioner Mr.P.V.Kapur,Senior Advocate with Mr. Murari Tiwari,Advocate,Mr. Rahul Kumar,Advocate,Mr.Devesh
Gupta,Advocate,Mr.Vimal Nagrath, Advocate,Mr.Sidharth Kapur, Advocate,Ms.Kaveri Gupta, Advocate and Mr.Purav Mehta, Advocate.
NEETU SINGH
VERSUS
Through:
CONT.CAS(C)984/2015
Through:
Respondent Ms.Rajeshwari,Advocate.
Gupta,Advocate,Mr.Vimal Nagrath, Advocate.
NEETU SINGH
Through:
Respondent Ms.Rajeshwari,Advocate.
Gupta,Advocate,Mr.Vimal Nagrath, Advocate.
NEETU SINGH
VERSUS
Through:
Respondent Ms.Rajeshwari,Advocate.
2017:DHC:8489 w
Respondent Ms.Rajeshwari,Advocate.
2017:DHC:8489 w
CONT.CAS(C)30/2016
Through:
Gupta,Advocate,Mr.VimalNagrath, Advocate.
Through:
Gupta,Advocate,Mr.VimalNagrath, Advocate.
VERSUS
NEETU SINGH Respondent
Through: Ms.Rajeshwari,Advocate.
Through: Ms.Rajeshwari,Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VALMIKIJ.MEHTA
ORDER o/o 11.10.2017 Contempt petitions are not pressed without prejudice to the claim and contentions ofthe petitioner in the contempt petitions thatthere is in fact a contempt committed by the respondent in the contempt petitions.
In any case, since the powers of contempt are discretionary and the main appeal has been disposed ofin view ofthe consent order between the parties dated 21.3.2016,therefore,in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing these contempt petitions and which are disposed of accordingly.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J OCTOBER 11,2017 Ne 2017:DHC:8489
ORDER o/o 11.10.2017 Contempt petitions are not pressed without prejudice to the claim and contentions ofthe petitioner in the contempt petitions thatthere is in fact a contempt committed by the respondent in the contempt petitions.
In any case, since the powers of contempt are discretionary and the main appeal has been disposed ofin view ofthe consent order between the parties dated 21.3.2016,therefore,in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by continuing these contempt petitions and which are disposed of accordingly.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J OCTOBER 11,2017 Ne 2017:DHC:8489
JUDGMENT