M/S R Cube Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Ravinder Kaur Srivastava Vs Sri Kumar Prashant, Managing Director U.P. State Construction and Infrastr. Dev. Corp. Ltd.Lko.

Present contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 26.5.2025 whereby with regard to the prayer of the petitioner for refund of earnest money, this Court had directed Managing Director, U.P. State Industrial Development Authority to get the facts verified and take decision for refund of earnest money as per the rules, within two months. The said order dated 26.5.2025 reads as under:-

¶12

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶13

The petitioner wants refund of his earnest money on the ground that he has completed the work satisfactorily.

¶14

Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 says that he has received feedback from all the units and what comes out is that some work has been completed but other works have not been completed and further formalities have not been completed.

¶15

Be that as it may, let the opposite party No.2 get the facts verified and take a decision for refund of earnest money accordingly as per rules within two months.

¶16

The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶17

We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

¶18

It is further submitted that the an application for correction/modification was submitted by the petitioner which was disposed of on 29.7.2025 by following orders:-

¶19

"C.M. Application No. 02 of 2025

¶20

Heard.

¶21

CAPL No. 2513 of 2025

¶22

2

¶23

We have persued our order dated 26.05.2025 and heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anuj Kudesia, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Due to inadvertence in the said order, instead of mentioning "security money and performance guarantee" in addition to "earnest money", only "earnest money" has been mentioned.

¶24

The order dated 26.05.2025 is corrected to the effect that a decision for refund of earnest money, security amount and performance guarantee shall be taken instead of merely taking a decision regarding the earnest money.

¶25

The order dated 26.05.2025 stands corrected accordingly.

¶26

The period of two months referred in our order shall commence from today, so far as, security money and performance guarantee is concerned. The application is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

Order Date :- 29.7.2025"

¶28

Against the order dated 29.7.2025 the petitioner filed yet another contempt petition bearing Contempt Application (Civil) No.3230 of 2025 in which allegations have been made with regard to disobedience of the order dated 29.7.2025. It is notice that this Court was of the considered opinion that the new contempt petition No.2513 of 2025 was not maintainable firstly, because the petitioner has deliberately concealed the order dated 29.7.2025 which was in existence on the date when the contempt petition was filed and secondly the order dated 26.5.2025 whose disobedience has been alleged itself stood corrected by subsequent order dated 29.7.2025.

¶29

A perusal of the order dated 29.7.2025 indicates that a period of two months commenced from 29.7.2025. Despite initial order dated 26.5.2025 having been corrected on 29.7.2025 the petitioner has filed instant contempt petition on 6.8.2025 concealing the subsequent order dated 29.7.2025 alleging disobedience of the order dated 26.5.2025.

¶30

We further find from the order sheet that notices were issued to the opposite parties and counter affidavit has been filed. This Court was informed that on 28.7.2025 some orders on the representation has been passed by the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, we find that the opposite parties have already taken decision as per the direction of this Court dated 26.5.2025 and modified order dated 29.7.2025.

¶31

We find that the order dated 26.5.2025 has subsequently been modified 29.7.2025 and for the aforesaid reasons the initial order dated 26.5.2025 did not exist in its original form and accordingly it is for the aforesaid reason that the contempt petition No.2513 of 2025 is misconceived and is clearly an abuse of

¶32

CAPL No. 2513 of 2025

¶33

3

¶34

the process of law and accordingly dismissed.

¶35

December 5, 2025 RKM.

¶36

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶37

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