Before proceeding with Contempt Court to verify who has to comply with the order

State Bank of Patiala v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, (2010) 4 SCC 368 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 152 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1044 at page 376

26. Before issuing any interim direction in contempt proceedings, or proposing to hold anyone guilty of contempt, the High Court should at least satisfy itself that the person to whom the notice is issued is the person responsible to implement the order. The order retiring the respondent was not passed by the Branch Manager and obviously he was not the officer who could implement the interim direction of the Chief Commissioner or the High Court.

Contempt only against party to original proceedings

Vardha Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra Kumar Razdan, (2015) 15 SCC 352 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1214 at page 357

15. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party in the writ petition wherein certain directions restraining grant of any permission to raise construction had been passed, nor the judgment passed in the writ petition attracted to the land in dispute. In the contempt petition grievance had been raised by Respondent 1 that the order passed in the writ petition had not been complied with in strict sense. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that under no circumstances, could the appellant be dealt with in contempt proceedings and no order adversely affecting it, could have been passed. Exercise of contempt jurisdiction may have very serious repercussions as basically these are quasi-criminal proceedings in nature and are resorted to punish a person who wilfully disobeys the directions issued by the court. In the instant case, even by a stretch of imagination, it cannot be assumed that the appellant could be subjected to the contempt proceedings. Before us, none of the counsel appearing for the respondent could point out as under what circumstances the Notifications dated 17-1-1997 and 10-12-1999 could be applicable to the land of the appellant. The land in dispute is located about 20 km away from the area described under those two notifications.

Relevance of preliminary file notings

Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Coop. Housing Society, (2018) 8 SCC 215 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 784 at page 225

36. Our answer to the question is "no". It is for the reasons that: first, a mere noting in the official files of the Government while dealing with any matter pertaining to any person is essentially an internal matter of the Government and carries with it no legal sanctity; second, once the decision on such issue is taken and approved by the competent authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, it is required to be communicated to the person concerned by the State Government. In other words, so long as the decision based on such internal deliberation is not approved and communicated by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed in that behalf to the person concerned, such noting does not create any right in favour of the person concerned nor it partake the nature of any legal order so as to enable the person concerned to claim any benefit of any such internal deliberation. Such noting(s) or/and deliberation(s) are always capable of being changed or/and amended or/and withdrawn by the competent authority.

Extending Benefits to Third parties in Service Law

State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that  "if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence." 

Representation and Extension of Limitation Period

     State of Tripura v. Arabinda Chakraborty, (2014) 6 SCC 460 : (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 300 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 353 at page 463

15. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. In the instant case, it is a fact that the respondent was given a fresh appointment order on 22-11-1967, which is on record. The said appointment order gave a fresh appointment to the respondent and therefore, there could not have been any question with regard to continuity of service with effect from the first employment of the respondent.

Money Claim in Writ Petition - Scope of 226

 Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 490 at page 766

"69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, "normally", the Court would not exercise such a discretion:

69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it.

69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration.

69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination.

69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances."