RAJEEV MITTAL Vs. SANJAY GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 11.04.2012 & 13.04.2012; contention of the petitioner before this Court is the in pending proceedings which were proceeding for contempt, the directions as contained in the aforenoted orders could not have been passed by the trial Court as the power to initiate contempt under the provisions of Sections 10 & 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is an inherent power vested with the High Court alone and the subordinate Court could not have issued the said directions; the said directions amounting to an illegality being beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Court are accordingly liable to be set aside.

(2.) ARGUMENTS have been refuted.

(3.) THE matter did not rest there. THE plaintiff was aggrieved; his contention was that this commitment had not been honoured; a contempt petition was filed; this was dated 28.03.2012; certain directions were given on 30.03.2012. It was finally disposed of on 03.04.2012 wherein it was noted that the parties are agreeable that the election process announced may be allowed to be conducted and through e-mail fresh list of delegates is required which may be registered and prepared up to 07.04.2012 and will be supplied to all the contesting members. This contempt petition was disposed of with the aforenoted directions on 03.04.2012.