Patna High Court
MJC/3620/2017 of M/s Pratibha China State Joint Venture Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Of Labour Department and Ors on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3620 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16019 of 2016 ====================================================== M/s Pratibha China State Joint Venture ( A unit of Pratibha Industries Ltd.) through its Manager Sri Samdarshi, S/o
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3620 of 2017
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16019 of 2016
======================================================
M/s Pratibha China State Joint Venture (A unit of Pratibha Industries Ltd.)
through its Manager Sri Samdarshi, S/o Sri Dhananjay Kumar R/o Tej Pratap Nagar, P.S.- Beur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Of Labour Department
2.
Parnesh Kumar Sinha, the Deputy Director, Regional Office Employee State Co- operation Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna
3.
The Enforcement Officer Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
None
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sushil Kr. Singh, AC to AAG 10
For resp. no. 2 & 3
:
Mr.Sudhir Kr. Bijpuria
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR
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.
ORAL ORDER
3 19-08-2026
1. No one appears for the petitioner whereas the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 are present.
2. It seems that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, so no fresh action has been taken to remove the defects, despite of the fact that the present contempt petition is of the year 2017.
3. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is disposed off.
rinkee/- (Alok Kumar, J) U