Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S NATIONAL FINANCE COMPANY versus SHRI VIKAS ARORA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s National Finance Company v. Shri Vikas Arora & Ors. - COCP-195-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4316 (18 July 2006)

COCP No.195 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.195 of 2005

Date of decision: July 20, 2006.

M/s National Finance Company

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Shri Vikas Arora & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri ADS Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner-company filed Crl. Misc. No.41513-M of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court on 25.9.2003 with a driection to respondents No.2 and 3, "not to harass or intimidate the petitioner or their employees". It was further directed that if any FIR is registered or to be registered against the petitioner-company, respondents No.2 and 3 shall give seven days advance notice to the proprietor of the petitioner-company, namely, Surinder Kakkar, if he is to be arrested so that he could pursue his legal remedy.

Alleging violation of the aforesaid order, this contempt petition has been filed.

In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit dated 20.4.2005 has been filed by the then Superintendent of Police, Karnal, inter- COCP No.195 of 2005 -: 2 :-

alia, pointing out that since no FIR has been registered against Mr. Surinder Kakkar, proprietor of the company and the police never wanted to arrest him in any other case, there was no reason to give 7 days advance notice to him.

Needless to say that if any case is to be registered against Mr.

Surinder Kakkar in future, the police authorities of the District Karnal shall follow and comply with the order dated 25.9.2003.

As far as the other direction, namely, action against those who are alleged to have intimidated or threatened the proprietor of the petitioner- company is concerned, Learned State Counsel has pointed out that FIR No.35 dated 1.2.2005, under sections 323, 149, 506, 341, 379 IPC, has been registered at Police Station City Karnal against those persons.

In view of the above stand, it appears that there is no disobedience or violation of the order dated 25.9.2003 passed by this court.

Consequently, this petition is disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 20, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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