AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 158 wordsVenkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
On 22.09.20255, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the orders passed by this Court have been complied with, whereas learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to obtain instructions and the matter was posted to 26.09.2025 for compliance.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents furnished written instructions received from the Principal Secretary to Government, Finance (FMU-TR&B) Department dated 22.09.2025, stating that the payment was done on 22.09.2025 and once again submitted that the orders passed by this Court have been complied with, but there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of compliance reported by learned counsel for the respondents and no representation by learned counsel for the petitioner, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this contempt case.
Accordingly, contempt case is closed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.