Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Brahma Deo v. C.A.T., Allahabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 5142 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2081 (27 January 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner.

The Contempt Petition had been filed for disobedience of the judgment and order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 46 of 1997. By the said judgment and order the following directions had been issued:-

"In view of what has been discussed above, I allow the OA and direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 12% till the date of payment within three months from the date of communication of this order. The respondents are further directed to make arrangement for payment of the Provident Fund of the applicant for the period from 1958 to 1968 with interest till date of payment @ 12%. This exercise shall be done within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

The Tribunal in its order dated 19.10.2005 has observed as under:-

"We have gone through the records produced by the respondents during course of arguments as well as also the Supplementary Affidavit along with its annexures and after perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the compliance of the order dated 28.09.2000 passed in O.A. No. 46/97 has duly been complied with, therefore, no case of Contempt survive. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Notices issued are hereby discharged."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how the order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Tribunal has not been complied with. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the order dated 19.10.2005 dismissing the Contempt Petition.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.