ANJALI BISHT vs AMIT KOTHIYAL — CLCON/218/2026

Case under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) Section 12. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Next hearing 18-Jun-2026

CNR: UKHC010071512026

Filing Number

CLCON/3741/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

CLCON/218/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CONTEMPT ( 6 )

Sub-Category

AGAINST FINAL ORDER ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971) Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANJALI BISHT

    Adv. AMAR MURTI SHUKLA,MUKESH SINGH RAWAT,MUKESH SINGH RAWAT, ,MUKESH SINGH RAWAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AMIT KOTHIYAL

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha Sah

  3. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Siddhartha SahView PDF

    Case Summary: CLCON/218/2026 - ANJALI BISHT v. AMIT KOTHIYAL The Court issued notice to the respondent after the petitioner alleged that a prior contempt order had not been complied with. The petitioner claims he was permitted to participate in a selection process but was excluded despite scoring higher quality marks than candidates who were ultimately selected and appointed. The respondent has been directed to file a response affidavit within one week, and the case is adjourned to 18.06.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh ThapliyalView PDF

  6. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CLCON/218/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CLCON/218/2026 - ANJALI BISHT v. AMIT KOTHIYAL The Court issued notice to the respondent after the petitioner alleged that a prior contempt order had not been complied with. The petitioner claims he was permitted to participate in a selection process but was excluded despite scoring higher quality marks than candidates who were ultimately selected and appointed. The respondent has been directed to file a response affidavit within one week, and the case is adjourned to 18.06.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case