Dismissed

Sharad Kumar Jaiswal v. Gunjan Kumar Baranwal and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2018CAPL/6292/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt application, the applicant sought enforcement of an undertaking given by the respondents not to demolish his tenanted shop. The court found that the affidavit alleged only roof damage and leakage in August 2016, with no allegation of demolition, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition against respondents was dismissed.

Sharad Kumar Jaiswal Vs Gunjan Kumar Baranwal and Another — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6292 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- Gunjan Kumar Baranwal And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Chandra Naik Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Ganguli, who had appeared for the opposite party No. 1.

¶6

On 20 June 2016, a writ petition preferred by the applicant was disposed of in the following terms:

¶7

“ Pursuant to the observations made, respondents have appeared and a counter affidavit sworn by respondent no.4 has been filed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner is a tenant of the shop situated in the building, which has three stories. It has further been stated that respondents undertake not to demolish the tenanted shop of the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed off with the observation that respondents shall not interfere with the possession of petitioner over the shop in question and not interfere with running of shop in any manner, except in accordance with law.”

¶9

As is evident from the above extract, an undertaking of the opposite party was taken on record to the effect that they would not demolish the tenanted shop of the applicant. This petition is based entirely upon and

¶10

is pressed solely upon averments made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit which reads thus:

¶11

9. That despite giving undertaking before the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the opposite parties broke the roof of shop in question on 21 August 2016 which resulted that roof of shop in question cracked and there became hole in some places of roof and rainy water started falling in the shop of petitioner/applicant and article/goods worth about 3 lacs became ruined. The photograph of roof is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this affidavit.

¶12

From the same it is evident that there is no allegation of any demolition having been effected by the opposite party No. 1. All that is alleged is that the roof of the shop of the applicant was damaged and it started leaking. Clearly on such a specious allegation a petition in contempt cannot possibly be entertained.

¶13

The petition is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.5.2018 LA/-

Sharad Kumar Jaiswal v. Gunjan Kumar Baranwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Kumar Jaiswal v. Gunjan Kumar Baranwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Nath Chaurasia Vs Sri. A.K. Tyagi Chief Engineer Jal Nigam

smt. rashmi singh Vs arun kumar dubey district inspector of schools and 3 others

Surabhi Singh Vs Sanjay Sinha Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad

uma kant and 8 other Vs sri suhas l.y. d.m.

mahaveer prasad Vs prabhakar chaudhary, senior superintendent of police

dinesh singh Vs smt. manju sharma, additional director of education and another