ABUB @ ABU AHMED MAZUMDAR vs MUKESH KUMAR AND 2 ORS. — Cont.Cas(C)/316/2026

Case under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section SEC. 10. Disposed: Contested--Closed on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010118712026

e-Filing Number

10-06-2026

Filing Number

Cont.Cas(C)/6802/2026

Filing Date

10-Jun-2026

Registration No

Cont.Cas(C)/316/2026

Registration Date

11-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10200 - Contempt Petition (Civil). ( 178 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Closed

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section SEC. 10
Constitution of India Section ART. 215

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABUB @ ABU AHMED MAZUMDAR

    Adv. MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY,MRS. R RONGMEI,MRS. R RONGMEI, ,J SARMAH,M N RONGMEI,MRS. R RONGMEI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUKESH KUMAR AND 2 ORS.

  2. 2.SARVPREET SINGH SAHNI

  3. 3.L RAVI SHANKAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

    The Gauhati High Court closed the contempt petition on 15.06.2026, finding that while a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 21.05.2026 observed that AU Small Finance Bank's conduct amounted to court contempt, the respondent bank managers were not properly served notice of this order or the petitioner's intended Section 10 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 proceedings. The court granted the petitioner liberty to first serve the order and notice of contemplated action on the alleged contemnors, and permitted refiling the contempt petition if the respondents fail to comply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cont.Cas(C)/316/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gauhati High Court closed the contempt petition on 15.06.2026, finding that while a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 21.05.2026 observed that AU Small Finance Bank's conduct amounted to court contempt, the respondent bank managers were not properly served notice of this order or the petitioner's intended Section 10 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 proceedings. The court granted the petitioner liberty to first serve the order and notice of contemplated action on the alleged contemnors, and permitted refiling the contempt petition if the respondents fail to comply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case