NARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. PRIYANK BHARTI AND ANOTHER
COCP/4816/2025 · 2025-09-19
Vikas Bahl
Contempt Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 101197 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 101197 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
COCP-4816-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (112) COCP-4816-2025 Date of decision: - 19.09.2025 Narinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Priyank Bharti and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for intentional and willful disobedience of the order dated 23.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
2. Learned State counsel has submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), a speaking order dated 17.01.2025 has been passed and a copy of the said speaking order has been handed over to the Court which is taken on record and has been marked as “Mark A”. A copy of the said speaking order has also been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the said speaking NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.19 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement
COCP-4816-2025 -2-
order, the present contempt petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. It is also submitted that in the said speaking order, some of the petitioners have been found eligible whereas some of the petitioners have not been found eligible and thus their case have been rejected.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the above, the present contempt petition be disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous, with liberty to the petitioners, moreso, those petitioners whose case have been rejected, to challenge the said speaking
order, in accordance with law.
4.
Disposed of, as having been rendered infructuous, with the aforesaid liberty.
( VIKAS BAHL ) September 19, 2025
JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NARESH KUMAR 2025.09.19 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement