M/S DHANANJAY YADAV THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS NAMELY DHANANJAY YADAV vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SUCHENDRA PRASAD, ,KHALIDA HAYA RASHMI,AYUSH KUMAR — Cont.(Cvl)/1177/2025
Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010312912025
Filing Number
Cont.(Cvl)/10238/2025
Filing Date
08-Sep-2025
Registration No
Cont.(Cvl)/1177/2025
Registration Date
16-Sep-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
Coram
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CONTEMPT ( 118 )
Sub-Category
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 15-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S DHANANJAY YADAV THROUGH ONE OF ITS PARTNERS NAMELY DHANANJAY YADAV
Adv. ASHIM KR SAHANI,VIKESH KUMAR,VIKESH KUMAR, ,VIKESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SUCHENDRA PRASAD, ,KHALIDA HAYA RASHMI,AYUSH KUMAR
-
2.SHRI SANJAY KUJUR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a contempt case against the Executive Director of JSBCCL, finding that despite the Managing Director's order acknowledging a payment was due to the petitioner, it was not genuinely complied with since payment remained conditional on fund allocation. The court gave the respondent six weeks to make effective payment, retaining the petitioner's right to file a fresh contempt case if payment is not made. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Feb-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
16-Jan-2026
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
-
19-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
-
19-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. Cont.(Cvl)/1177/2025
The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a contempt case against the Executive Director of JSBCCL, finding that despite the Managing Director's order acknowledging a payment was due to the petitioner, it was not genuinely complied with since payment remained conditional on fund allocation. The court gave the respondent six weeks to make effective payment, retaining the petitioner's right to file a fresh contempt case if payment is not made. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts