pursuance of the order dated 18th February, 1981. But he misinterpreted the orders and passed the order dated 18th August, 1981 under which Pokharmal ... passed under a mistake and it proceeds on a misinterpretation of the orders of the Officers of the Board and it cannot be said that
impugned order and quashed the orders
passed by the appellant-CIDCO cancelling the allotment. The High court
while passing the impugned order has gone through ... appellant-CIDCO,
contended that the High Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted order
passed by this Court in the case of Popcorn Entertainment (supra
just exceptions.
CRR-115-2023
The petitioners are seeking setting aside of order dated
19.12.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court ... alia contends that the learned Appellate Court while passing the
impugned order misinterpreted the terms and conditions detailed in the
MOU dated 30.11.2013 (Annexure
fact, Contemnor No.2 does not claim to have misinterpreted or misunderstood the order. Instead, he insists that the clarificatory order of the Division Bench ... cannot be said that it was a mere misinterpretation of the order. The action and conduct of Contemnor Nos.1,2 and 4 shows that
present writ application was filed questioning the said order. By reason of the impugned order, the said application had been dismissed by the learned Tribunal ... land does not arise.
(3) It has misread and misinterpreted the order of this Court dated 4th February, 1972.
(4) Reliance upon the meaning
obeyed by a party due to bona fide
misinterpretation of the order, the disobedience does not
amount to contempt of the Court. In the present ... disobeyed the order dated 8-12-98
because they bona fide misinterpreted the order? In my
opinion, the answer has to be in the negative
Sessions Judge, Faridabad has totally
misinterpreted Section 82 (4) of the Cr.P.C. and set aside the order
passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class ... Indian Penal Code . Only on the
basis of this misinterpretation, order of declaring respondent No.2 as
proclaimed offender was set aside. Moreover, the revision
letters were issued by the respondent authorities on the misconstruction and misinterpreting the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case referred hereinabove ... Learned counsel submitted that the State of Jharkhand are misconstruing and misinterpreting the order dated 12.12.1996 and 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court
even a case of rejection of the plaint. Rather
on complete misinterpretation of order dated 25.5.1998
passed in Title Suit ... conclusion
because of the impugned order dated 10.8.1999 on complete
misinterpretation of an order dated 25.5.1998 (Annexure-4)
passed in Title Suit
Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P on 10 April, 1962
Equivalent citations: AIR
