M/S PACKRAFT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR V.S. MANN versus U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.

Violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra's case is not to be remedied by contempt proceedings, but through judicial review.

Parties: Petitioner: MIS PACKRAFF (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR V.S. MANN; Respondent: U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 13 November 1995
Procedural Posture: Contempt Petition / Supreme Court Disposition of Contempt Petition No. 326 of 1995 With Reference to Civil Appeal No. 4503 of 1990
Outcome: Petition dismissed
Legal Topics: Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines, Enforcement of Supreme Court Judgments Under Article 141

Contempt of Court Judicial Review Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines Enforcement of Supreme Court Judgments Under Article 141

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1

Parties

MIS PACKRAFF (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR V.S. MANN

Petitioner

U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition / Supreme Court Disposition of Contempt Petition No. 326 of 1995 With Reference to Civil Appeal No. 4503 of 1990

Legal Issues

1 Whether sale of properties by UPFC violated Supreme Court guidelines from Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC.
2 Whether contempt proceedings are the correct remedy for violation of Supreme Court law.

Ratio Decidendi

Violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra's case is not to be remedied by contempt proceedings, but through judicial review.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

The contempt petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.