Dismissed

Madan Singh v. Sri Kunal Silku M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025CAPL/1611/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt application alleging non-compliance with a direction to ensure payment within two months. The Court held that the writ court order did not specify a particular interest amount and the disputed interest figure was merely an admission of a claim, not liability, which could not be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction. Contempt dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Madan Singh Vs Sri Kunal Silku M.D., Pradeshik… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1611 of 2023

Madan Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Sri Kunal Silku M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko. And Another

¶7

Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Lalit Shukla Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 is taken on record.

¶11

The present contempt application has been preferred for the alleged non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023, the relevant part of which is quoted herein below :

¶12

"Considering the fact that the payment is to be made by the opposite party no.3, the present petition is disposed off directing the opposite party no.2 to ensure the payment to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months."

¶13

Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the writ court, all the dues along with interest have been paid to the applicant and the judgment and order passed by the writ court has thus been complied with. In this regard, application for discharge of the contempt notice issued against the respondent no.5 along with short counter affidavit has been filed on 16.07.2025 by the respondent no.5.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the interest has not yet been paid to the applicant, as admitted by the respondent in its order dated 22.04/05.2023 filed along with an

¶15

CAPL No. 1611 of 2023

¶16

¶17

application for discharge of the contempt notice issued against the respondent no.3 along with short counter affidavit filed on 03.03.2024 by the respondent no.3. In the said order, it is stated that the interest liable to be paid to the applicant is Rs.2,44,703/-. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the writ court has not been complied with.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order passed by the writ court, the relevant portion of which is quoted herein above, it is evident that the writ court has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no.2 (who is respondent no.4 in the present contempt application) to ensure the payment to the applicant in accordance with law within a period of two months.

¶19

Neither any specific amount was mentioned nor any direction was given for payment of a particular amount as interest to the applicant.

¶20

The amount now being pressed by the applicant i.e. Rs.2,44,703/-, claimed to be an admitted amount by the respondents, is wholly incorrect upon a perusal of the order dated 22.04/05.2023 relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant. By the said order, the representation of the applicant was rejected. The amount reflected therein was the figure claimed by the applicant in his representation and not admitted the liability by the respondents. It was merely the applicant's demand which has been wrongly construed by his counsel as an admission on the part of the respondents. If there exists any dispute regarding such determination, the same could not be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction.

¶21

In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, as the judgment and order passed by the writ court has been complied with, the present contempt application hereby dismissed.

¶22

Notices issued, if any, are hereby discharged.

¶23

September 3, 2025 Mahesh

¶24

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madan Singh v. Sri Kunal Silku M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Madan Singh v. Sri Kunal Silku M.D., Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Vansh Singh Vs Kumar Prashant Director Social Welfare, 3 Prag Narain Road Lko. and 3 Others

Naseem Ahmed Ansari Vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Addl. General Manager / Unit Head Iti Ltd., Raibareli and Another

Virendr Nath Yadav Vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Addl. General Manager/ Unit Head Iti Ltd., Raibareli and Another

Bipat Ram Verma Vs Ram Ajore

Ram Vilas Vs Shri Atal Kumar Rai, Director Panchayati Raj U.P. Lko.

Dr. Prakash Chandra Vs Arvind Kumar Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Civil