STATE OF JHARKHAND REPRESENTED THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER vs SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA AND ORS — C.M.P./333/2015

Disposed: --Dismissed on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 05-Nov-2015

CNR: JHHC010156892015

Filing Number

C.M.P./22821/2015

Filing Date

11-Sep-2015

Registration No

C.M.P./333/2015

Registration Date

12-Sep-2015

Judge

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CIVIL PROCEDURE & LIMITATION ( 113 )

Sub-Category

Modification Matter ( 29 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Dismissed

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND REPRESENTED THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

    Adv. RISHIKESH GIRI,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD, ,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD,VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA AND ORS

    Adv. ,NIRAJ KISHORE,BANDANA KUMARI SINHA,NIRAJ KISHORE,NIRAJ KISHORE,BANDANA KUMARI SINHA,BANDANA KUMARI SINHA,NIRAJ KISHORE,BANDANA KUMARI SINHA 1123

  2. 2.Sri Arbind Kumar Choudhary

  3. 3.Sri Badri Nath Choubey

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF

  3. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: C.M.P. /333/2015 The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the State's petition as not maintainable. The State sought to modify a contempt court order that directed payment of compensation with interest, arguing the contempt court exceeded jurisdiction by adding the interest direction beyond the original writ petition's scope. The Court held that contempt proceedings cannot issue supplemental directions beyond the original order, and while modification differs from quashing, seeking to delete substantive directions amounts to exceeding Article 226 jurisdiction—making the petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  5. 20-Mar-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  8. 20-Feb-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  9. 17-Feb-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  11. 02-Feb-2026

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

  12. 26-Sep-2024

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

  13. 15-Mar-2023

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  14. 20-Mar-2020

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  15. 07-Feb-2020

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  16. 07-Feb-2020

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  17. 20-Dec-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  18. 20-Dec-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  19. 13-Dec-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  20. 06-Dec-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  21. 25-Oct-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  22. 23-Aug-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  23. 19-Jul-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  24. 19-Jul-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  25. 03-May-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  26. 26-Apr-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  27. 01-Mar-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  28. 15-Feb-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  29. 15-Feb-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  30. 18-Jan-2019

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  31. 18-Jan-2019

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  32. 07-Dec-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  33. 07-Dec-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  34. 29-Oct-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  35. 29-Oct-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  36. 28-Sep-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  37. 28-Sep-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  38. 13-Sep-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  39. 13-Sep-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  40. 08-Aug-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  41. 08-Aug-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  42. 03-Jul-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  43. 03-Jul-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  44. 15-May-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  45. 15-May-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  46. 15-May-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  47. 17-Apr-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  48. 17-Apr-2018

    Final Disposal

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  49. 23-Mar-2018

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekharView PDF

  50. 28-Oct-2016

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.chandrashekhar

  51. 23-Sep-2016

    —View PDF

  52. 05-Nov-2015

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 11-Sep-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.M.P./333/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.M.P. /333/2015 The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the State's petition as not maintainable. The State sought to modify a contempt court order that directed payment of compensation with interest, arguing the contempt court exceeded jurisdiction by adding the interest direction beyond the original writ petition's scope. The Court held that contempt proceedings cannot issue supplemental directions beyond the original order, and while modification differs from quashing, seeking to delete substantive directions amounts to exceeding Article 226 jurisdiction—making the petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case