MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs AGRICULTURE BANK OF PAKISTAN (ADBP) HEAD OFFICE
This matter originated as a contempt of court petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Akram, against respondent No. 3, alleging a violation of a previous court direction. The core legal question before the Court was whether the respondent had willfully disobeyed the Court's order dated September 27, 2000, thereby committing contempt. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the respondent had, in fact, complied with the prior directive by deciding the petitioner's application on October 9, 2000. Consequently, the Court held that no contempt had been committed. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the established legal principle that contempt proceedings are strictly a matter between the Court and the alleged contemner, and that where compliance with a judicial order is demonstrated, no grounds for contempt exist. The Court declined to issue a notice to the respondent, finding the allegation of disobedience unsubstantiated by the facts presented in the record.
- Does compliance with a prior court order negate a charge of contempt of court?
- Is a contempt proceeding a matter between the Court and the contemner?
ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No, 3 violated the direction of this Court and committed contempt of this Court.
2. The learned counsel of the respondent No. 3 submits that respondent. Has passed the order as directed by this Court on 9.10.2000 and he did not commit any contempt of this Court.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and persuaded the record myself. The respondent No. 3 has decided the application of the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2000 on 9.10.2000, therefore, respondent No. 3 did not commit contempt of this Court. It is settled proposition of law that contempt is always between the Court and the contemner. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to issue notice fo the respondent, therefore, the same is dismissed.