Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAY GOEL versus DR.G. VAJRALINGAM, IAS ETC.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajay Goel v. Dr.G. Vajralingam, IAS etc. - COCP-869-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6813 (8 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.O.C.P. No.869 of 2006

Date of Decision:11.9.2006.

Ajay Goel

....Petitioner.

Versus

Dr.G. Vajralingam, IAS etc.

...Respondents.

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.
Present:- Mr.R.K.Jain,Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta,Advocate

for the respondents.

****

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL)

The petitioner filed C.W.P. No.13190 of 2004 which was disposed of by this court on 27.8.2004 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation by passing a speaking order within a period of two months.

As the order passed the consideration of the representation made by the petitioner was not communicated to him, it appears that the petitioner filed another C.W.P. No.10467 of 2006 which was, however, withdrawn by him on July 14, 2006 with liberty to file this contempt petition.

Alleging that the order dated 27.8.2004 passed in the C.W.P.

No.13190 of 2004 has not been complied with so far, this contempt petition has been filed.

In response to the show cause notice an affidavit has been filed by Dr. G.Vajralingam, Managing Director, Punjab Financial Corporation.

Along with the said affidavit he has appended the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the then Managing Director vide which the petitioner's claim appears to have been considered and rejected. Though in the said speaking order it is mentioned that the copy of the said order may be sent to the petitioner by registered post, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no such letter has been received by the petitioner.

Be that as it may, since the directions issued by this court have been complied with and a speaking order has been passed by the respondents, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the above said speaking order before the appropriate form, if so advised.

Rule discharged.

(SURYA KANT)

Sept 11,2006. JUDGE

Reema


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.