REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rajat Gupta Appellant

V/S

Rupali Gupta Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HYMAN VS. HYMAN [REFERRED TO]
GREATER BOMBAY VS. DR. HAKIMWADI TENANTS ASSOCIATION AD ORS [REFERRED TO]
S. BALASUBRAMANIYAM V. P. JANAKARAJU AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
HIRABAI BHARUCHA VS. PIROJSHAH BHARUCHA [REFERRED TO]
G F ANGADI VS. Y S HIRANNAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SURESHTA DEVI VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
NIAZ MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KAPILDEO PRASAD SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. SADRUDDIN HASAN DAYA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NARANG VS. RAMESH NARANG [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NARANG VS. RAMESH NARANG [REFERRED TO]
SMRUTI PAHARIYA VS. SANJAY PAHARIYA [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR JAIN VS. MAYA JAIN [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH RANJAN VS. ANUPAMA TANDON [REFERRED TO]
HITESH BHATNAGAR VS. DEEPA BHATNAGAR [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT KAUR VS. RAJINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI VS. DARSHAN NIRMAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH ALUMAL KALANDARI VS. JAHNAVI PRAKASH KALANDARI [REFERRED TO]
SHIKHA BHATIA VS. GAURAV BHATIA [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRAPPA NATIKAR VS. NEELAMMA [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH R.NAIR VS. MEERA BABU [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN VS. MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA [REFERRED TO]
ANGLE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. ASHOK MANCHANDA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have been placed before this Bench by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice in terms of an order dated 09.01.2017, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the captioned contempt petitions wherein the following four questions of law have been framed for consideration:-

(2.) We may clarify that the reference made to the three decisions referred to in para (D) above, is as follows:-

(3.) The backdrop in which the reference has been made by the learned Single Judge on the four questions of law extracted above, is that a batch of contempt petitions were placed before the said Court, alleging inter alia willful disobedience of the undertaking given by a spouse to appear, sign and file, both, the Section 13B(1) petition and the Section 13(B)(2) motion under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act"). The undertakings given by the spouses were accepted by the Court either at the stage of filing the Section 13B(1) petition or were incorporated in a consent decree. It was noted that except in CONT.CAS(C) 1147/2016 and 1251/2016, the undertakings in all the remaining cases, as furnished to the concerned courts and duly accepted, were against consideration. Following is a tabulated statement of the factual status of each case in these batch of petitions:-

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJAT GUPTA Vs. RUPALI GUPTA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address