Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANSHI LAL CHADDHA AND ANOTHER versus ANIL PRAKASH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Banshi Lal Chaddha And Another v. Anil Prakash - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 931 of 1995 [2005] RD-AH 316 (2 February 2005)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.48

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition  No. 931 of 1995

Banshi Lal Chaddha and others.............................................. Applicants

Vs.

Anil Prakash Nigam........................................................Opposite party

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants is present. Learned counsel for the opposite party is not present.

The present Contempt Petition purporting to be under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioners/applicants, interalia, praying for punishing the opposite party for having committed contempt of this court by allegedly flouting the order dated 9.3.1995 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 1995.

It is, interalia, stated in the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition that for redressal of their grievances, the petitioners/applicants filed the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 1995; and that in the said writ petition, an interim order dated 9.3.1995 was passed. The said interim order, as quoted in paragraph 8 of the affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition, is as follows:

"Standing counsel for respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may then be filed within a week. List thereafter for admission.

Until further orders, the sale pursuant to the tenders invited vide letter dated 12th January, 1995 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) will not be finalized. However, the respondents are at liberty to comply with the judgment of this Court dated 18th March, 1993 passed in writ petition No. 10611 of 1993, M/s Rubber India versus Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation."

It is, interalia, further stated that despite having knowledge of the said interim order  dated 9.3.1995 the opposite party disregarded the said order and sold the petitioners/applicants' unit on 13.3.1995.

It further appears that by the order dated 25.5.1995 passed on the Contempt Petition, notice was directed to be issued to the opposite party to show cause as to why he be not punished for violating the said order dated 9.3.1995 passed by this Court. The said order dated 25.5.1995 is as follows:

"Issue notice to the opposite party to show cause as to why he should not be punished for violating the order dated 9.3.95 passed by this Court.

List on 29th August, 1995.

The opposite party need not appear in person unless ordered otherwise."

In response to the notice issued pursuant to the said order dated 25.5.1995, Anil Prakash Nigam (opposite party) put in appearance and filed his counter affidavit, sworn on 20.10.1995.

In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said counter affidavit, it is interalia, stated that the opposite party came to know for the first time regarding the said interim order dated 9.3.1995 on 21.3.1995 when the copy of the said order was received by registered post sent by the petitioners/applicants. It is, interalia, further stated in the said paragraphs of the counter affidavit that the bid of M/s Jodhpur Amery Stones Pvt. Ltd. was finalized on 21.2.1995 and the sale deed was executed on 13.3.1995. It is further asserted that prior to 21.3.1995, the petitioners/applicants did not tender the copy of the said order dated 9.3.1995 on the opposite party.

In reply to the said counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, sworn on 25.1.1996, was filed on behalf of the petitioners/applicants. In the said rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners/applicants have reiterated the averments made in the Contempt Petition. The averments made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit are disputed in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the rejoinder affidavit.

By the order dated 12.8.2004, the Contempt Petition was directed to be listed alongwith the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 1995.

Pursuant to the said order dated 12.8.2004, the Contempt Petition is listed alongwith the record of the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 1995.

A perusal of the record of the said writ petition shows that on 7.9.1998, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on statement made by Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners in the said writ petition. The said order dated 7.9.1998 passed in the said writ petition is quoted below:

"Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be dismissed as infructuous.

It is accordingly dismissed . Interim order, if any, is discharged."

From the narration of the facts given above, it is evident that the present Contempt Petition has been filed on the ground of the alleged violation of the interim order dated 9.3.1995 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 1995. However, as noted above, the said writ petition itself was dismissed as infructuous on statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the said writ petition. The interim order passed in the said writ petition was also discharged.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the said writ petition having been dismissed as infructuous and the interim order passed therein having been discharged, the present Contempt Petition has also become infructuous, and the same is liable to be dismissed as such.

Consequently, the Contempt Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. The show-cause notice issued to the opposite party is discharged.

The record of the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 1995, which is appended to the present Contempt Petition, will be detached and sent to the concerned Section.

Dt. 2.2.2005

safi


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.