respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
2012 was not communicated to respondent No. 2, that false
undertaking was given and that eligibility criteria was violated. There is
no other premise
undertaking given to the Court as per the MOC dated 27.07.2015, are clearly liable for committing the contempt of Court. The undertaking given ... amounts to contempt of court, as the contemnors by giving a false undertaking both to the Court as well as to the petitioner, obtained
respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
examine whether the
failure by the Appellant to comply with the undertaking given to the Court
to make payment which was recorded in the order ... deliberately misled the
Respondent or even the Court by giving a false undertaking with no
intention of complying with such an undertaking. This
respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
respondent no.1 had misled this
Court by giving a false undertaking that HR coils were
21
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2018 ::: Downloaded
