Meghalaya High Court

Cont.Cas(C)/25/2026 of FLORIDA KHARSHIING Vs G.D GUPTA on 29 July 2026

of 2 Serial No. 01 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Cont.Cas(C)No.25 of 2026 Date of Order: 29.07.2026 Smti. Florida Kharshiing W/o (L) Abdul Haque R/o Rynjah, Umpling, Shillong East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …..Petitioner -VERSUS- Shri. G.D. Gupta, Son of (L) J.

Serial No. 01 Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

Cont.Cas(C)No.25 of 2026

Date of Order: 29.07.2026

Smti. Florida Kharshiing W/o (L) Abdul Haque R/o Rynjah, Umpling, Shillong East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

…..Petitioner

-VERSUS- Shri. G.D. Gupta, Son of (L) J. Kanoo R/o U.P Sweet Meat, Police Bazaar, Shillong East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

…..Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Jha, Adv

For the Respondent(s)

: Mr. A. Khan, Adv

(ORAL)

Heard Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by this Court in MC(SA) No. 1 of 2026. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed a show cause explaining the allegations made in the contempt petition.

Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that there was no wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.04.2026 and that the additional lock on the disputed premises was put 2026:MLHC:783

Page 1 of 2

under a misconception and due to a misreading of the order dated 29.04.2026. He further submits that, consequent to the passing of the order dated 14.07.2026 in MC(SA) No. 3 of 2026, the respondent removed the additional lock immediately.

Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though has submitted that the explanation offered by the respondent is not acceptable, but as the additional lock has now been removed, leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.

Considering the above aspect of the matter, more particularly, the fact that the additional lock put by the respondent has already been removed, this Court does not see any reason to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondent and accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya 29.07.2026 “Shrity,PS” 2026:MLHC:783 Digitally signed by SHRITY CH MOMIN Date: 2026.07.29 14:49:26 IST Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead