Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CCP(D)/35/2025 of IMRAN MATTOO Vs AMITAVA CHATTERJEE AND ANR on 6 November 2025
No.1 REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(D) 35/2025 In [LPA 205/2024] Imran Mattoo …Petition(s) Through: Mr. G.A. Lone, Advocate Mr. N.A. Baba, Advocate & Vs. Amitava Chatterjee and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T.H. Khawaja, Sr.
Serial No.1
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(D) 35/2025
In [LPA 205/2024]
Imran Mattoo
…Petition(s)
Through:
Mr. G.A. Lone, Advocate
Mr. N.A. Baba, Advocate &
Vs.
Amitava Chatterjee and Anr.
...Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. T.H. Khawaja, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Imam Abdul Muizz, Advocate &
Mr. Naseer Ul Akbar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
06.11.2025
1. This contempt petition by the petitioner is for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience and non-compliance of an interim order dated 23rd August, 2024 passed in LPA No. 205/2024, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to review the sealed cover procedure adopted in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states at the Bar that in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 23rd August, 2024 the sealed cover procedure adopted has been duly reviewed and the benefit of promotion has been given to those who have been held entitled to such promotion.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings in this contempt petition are closed.
4. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the relief granted by the respondents upon opening of the sealed cover, he shall be at liberty to work out the remedies as may be available to him under law, and the closure of this contempt petition shall not preclude him from doing so.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 06.11.2025 “Mir Arif”