Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether contempt was made out in relation to the non-deposit of amounts directed earlier, and whether time should be granted for compliance; (ii) whether the earlier judgment prevented the petitioners from applying under the later office memorandum.
Issue (i): whether contempt was made out in relation to the non-deposit of amounts directed earlier, and whether time should be granted for compliance.
Analysis: The Court recorded a prima facie view that contempt had been committed, but granted one last opportunity to deposit the amounts within two weeks instead of proceeding further at that stage.
Conclusion: The contempt petition was disposed of after granting a further period for compliance.
Issue (ii): whether the earlier judgment prevented the petitioners from applying under the later office memorandum.
Analysis: The Court clarified that the earlier judgment would not bar an application under the office memorandum dated 28.11.2019 and that such application would be considered independently on its own merits.
Conclusion: The petitioners were permitted to apply under the office memorandum, and the application was to be decided on its own merits.
Final Conclusion: The contempt matter was closed with a final opportunity for compliance, and the connected clarification preserved the petitioners' ability to seek consideration under the later office memorandum.