Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANT PARTKASH SINGH GILL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sant Partkash Singh Gill v. State of Punjab & Ors. - COCP-27-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6810 (8 September 2006)

COCP No.27 of 2006 -: 1 :-

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

COCP No.27 of 2006

Date of decision: September 18, 2006.

Sant Partkash Singh Gill

...Petitioner(s)

v.

State of Punjab & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: None for the petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner filed CWP No.16281 of 2005, in which, vide interim order dated October 7, 2005, the recovery of Rs.2,43,989/- out of the petitioner's DCRG was stayed till further orders.

Alleging non-compliance of the above said order, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

In response to the show cause notice, Mr. K.R. Lakhanpal, Chief Secretary to Govt. Punjab has filed his affidavit dated July 24, 2006.

Similarly, separate affidavits have been filed by Mr. Gurinderjit Singh Sandhu, Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Mr. Nand Lal, Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, as well as by Mr.V.K. Mantrao, Chief Engineer/Canals, Irrigation Works, Punjab.

As per the averments made in the aforesaid affidavits, COCP No.27 of 2006 -: 2 :-

necessary instructions to release the entire amount of DCRG, without making any deductions out of the same, have been issued by the authorities and in order to get the amount of DCRG, the petitioner has already furnished indemnity bond on 21.7.2006, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure R-4.

Since upon furnishing the indemnity bond by the petitioner, the entire amount of DCRG has been released, which has since been received by the petitioner vide Annexure R-3, it is apparent that the interim order passed by this Court has been complied with by the respondents.

Consequently, no further action is required to be taken in this petition which is accordingly disposed of.

Rule discharged.

September 18, 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.