High Court of DelhiCONT.CAS(C)/748/2012

Skullandy Inc. v. Prakash & ORS

2016-07-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan2 pages

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 748/2012 SKULLANDY INC.

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advocate.

versus PRAKASH & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 15.07.2016 Present contempt petition has been filed alleging that pursuant to order dated 24th August, 2012 passed in a suit filed by the petitioner, a Local Commissioner was appointed who was prevented by the private respondents from executing the commission.

For the last nearly four years, the petitioner has not been able to serve the respondents.

Consequently, present contempt petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to seek its revival or file a fresh contempt petition after the respondents have been traced out.

This Court may mention that though the learned counsel for petitioner urged that the respondents should be declared Proclaimed Offenders, yet this Court is of the opinion that even if the respondents are declared as Proclaimed Offenders, no attachment order can be implemented as no

properties of the respondents are available or known. Consequently, this Court is of the view that only after the respondents are traced out can this Court proceed further in the present case. MANMOHAN, J JULY 15, 2016 js