Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravinder Kumar vs Bhupinder Singh Rai on 9 December, 2014

Author: Augustine George Masih

Bench: Augustine George Masih

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                              CHANDIGARH

                                                  COCP No.484 of 2014
                                                  Date of Decision: December 09, 2014

           Ravinder Kumar
                                                                            ...Petitioner(s)
                                                  Versus

           Bhupinder Singh Rai, Managing Director
                                                                            ...Respondent(s)

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

           Present:             Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate and
                                Mr. J. C. Malik, Advocate
                                for the petitioner(s).

                                Mr. Rupinder S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate with
                                Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Mamrat, Advocate
                                for the respondent(s).
                                             *****

           AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent states that if, in pursuance to the order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in CWP No.26115 of 2013, titled as 'Ravinder Kumar Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala', the order has not been passed and conveyed to the petitioner, the same shall be now passed within a period of one week from today and conveyed to the petitioner within a further period of one week.

In view of the statement given by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the present contempt petition is disposed of.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail of his remedy in accordance with law, if he is not satisfied with the order which may be passed by the respondent. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to revive the contempt petition, if the statement given by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent is not adhered to or violated.

Rule discharged subject to above.

           December 09, 2014                            ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
           Harish                                                 JUDGE
HARISH KUMAR
2014.12.11 11:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document