CONT.APP.(C)/13/2023 of JAGMOHAN KAPOOR Vs MAMTA KAPOOR
Parties
- End of picture text -----<br> (PETITIONER)
- > picture [399 x 62] intentionally omitted <== (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 5 detected)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CONT.APP.(C) 13/2023, CM APPLs. 13972/2023 & 13973/2023 JAGMOHAN KAPOOR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R K Tarun and Mr. Rohit Shukla, Advs.
versus
MAMTA KAPOOR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. Ms. Sudershani Ray, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
% 14.02.2024
1.Yesterday, we raised an issue on the maintainability of the appeal because of the fact that the contempt petition was dismissed with cost of ₹25,000/- to be paid to the respondent.
2.In view of the position of law in the case of D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan
Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 and Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal
Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399, the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Liberty is with the appellant to seek such remedy as available in law.
3.The appeal is dismissed. No Cost.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2024/ds
SAURABH BANERJEE, J