BIPLAB SAHU SANCHAYITA DE vs SHAILENDRA UTTAM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR EASTERN REGION, SSC AND ORS — CPAN/614/2026

Case under Contempt of Courts Act Section NA. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: WBCHCA0209142026

Filing Number

CPAN/624/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

CPAN/614/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Civil Contempt ( 8 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Contempt of Courts Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BIPLAB SAHU SANCHAYITA DE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHAILENDRA UTTAM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR EASTERN REGION, SSC AND ORS

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Saugata BhattacharyyaView PDF

    CPAN 614/2026 Summary: Petitioner Biplab Sahu filed a contempt application alleging violation of an order dated 3rd February 2026 passed on a connected writ petition. The court found that the earlier writ petition was allowed based on a judgment dated 18th December 2025. However, the court noted that an intra-court appeal has been preferred against that judgment, and the applicant failed to disclose the status of this appeal. The hearing of the contempt application was adjourned, and the matter was removed from the list with liberty to mention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Contempt

    Hon'ble Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya

  4. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CPAN/614/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CPAN 614/2026 Summary: Petitioner Biplab Sahu filed a contempt application alleging violation of an order dated 3rd February 2026 passed on a connected writ petition. The court found that the earlier writ petition was allowed based on a judgment dated 18th December 2025. However, the court noted that an intra-court appeal has been preferred against that judgment, and the applicant failed to disclose the status of this appeal. The hearing of the contempt application was adjourned, and the matter was removed from the list with liberty to mention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case