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


Om Prakash v. Irfan, Managing Director And Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 3130 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13110 (7 August 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).


Court No. 9.

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 3130 of 2006.

Om Prakash               Vs. Irgan,Managing Director & others.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

This petition has been filed to summon the opposite party no.  and to punish him for committing contempt of the order dated 19.12.2005 passed in writ petition No. 76835 of 2005 between Om Prakash and State of U.P.

The petitioner admits to have taken loan from the bank and is defaulter to the tune of Rs. 56,364/-.

In order to avoid the extreme hardships and further on the concession of the bank, this Court interfered in the writ petition and pass an order dated 19.12.2005 allowed the petitioner to pay the amount in three instalments falling due on 28.2.2006              31.5.2006, and 31.8.2006.  Condition no. 3 of the order provide that recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance and in case of default it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings.  Condition no. 4  provide that the application moved for supply of statement of account along with duly stamped self addressed envelop and in case any such application is filed, the concerned branch of the bank would give the same to the petitioner after deposit of the first instalment within fifteen days.

Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the first instalment  of Rs. 20,950/- was deposited on 25.3.2006.  The petitioner, however, has not deposited the second instalment due on 31.5.2006  and has come to this Court again with a complaint that the bank has not provided him his statement of account.

The furnishing of statement of account after depositing first instalment was not a condition precedent to pay the second


instalment.  The petitioner had admitted the amount due under recovery certificate.  The statement of account was  to be provided by way of ensuring transparency in the proceedings.  

It appears that the petitioner had taken benefit of order in deposing first instalment.  The petitioner has failed  to deposit second instalment on which he is no longer entitled to further  benefits.

Now since the petitioner has committed a default and  has committed breach of the condition given in the judgment of the Court, he is not entitled to any relief given to him in the order.  He cannot be heard to say that since the statement of account was not furnished the manager is uner contempt and that on that account he is exempted from depositing second and third instalment.

A party seeking to call upon the respondent for committing contempt of the Court, he should come to the Court with clean hands and say his bonafide.  

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 7.8.2006



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.