Disposed

Smt. Dileshwari Yadav v. Sunil Kumar Lala

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2019CONT/824/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed a contempt petition filed against the State Bank of India Assistant General Manager. The petitioner alleged non-compliance of a previous stay order on pension recovery, but the court held that the bank's freezing of a fixed deposit was not actionable under contempt jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed off on the ground that the grievance regarding the freezing of the fixed deposit is not entertainable under contempt jurisdiction.

Smt. Dileshwari Yadav Vs Sunil Kumar Lala — Contempt of Court | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CONT No. 824 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Dileshwari Yadav, W/o Late Shri Anjor Singh Yadav, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Quarter No. 11/24, Officer Colony, S.F. Line Bhilai, District: Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sunil Kumar Lala, Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India, Centralized Pension Processing Cell Behind Working Women Hostel, Govindpura, Bhopal (M.P.) Pin-462023

¶9

---Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate with Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Add. Adv. General

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶12

26.11.2019

¶13

The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging noncompliance of the Order dated 22.10.2018 passed in WPS No. 6883 of 2018 by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

The direction given by this Hon'ble Court on 22.10.2018 was to stay the effect and operation of the recovery order issued by the respondents. The recovery was to be made from the pension payable to the petitioner/applicant. The respondent has now entered appearance and has filed his reply, in the reply he has said that he had stayed the effect and operation of the order and no recovery is being made from the pension.

¶15

This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the applicant.

¶16

-2-

¶17

However, the counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent on one hand has not made any recovery from the pension but at the same time has put to hold the disbursement of the Fixed Deposit of the petitioner/applicant lying with the bank. The said grievance of the petitioner/applicant is not one which could be entertained under the contempt jurisdiction. If at all, if the petitioner/applicant is aggrieved of by the said action, the same would have to be raised by way of an application in the pending writ petition or by availing any other remedy open for the petitioner/applicant.

¶18

Accordingly, the present Contempt Petition stands disposed-off.

¶19

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶20

Rahul

Smt. Dileshwari Yadav v. Sunil Kumar Lala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dileshwari Yadav v. Sunil Kumar Lala

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

Shyam Sunder Tekam Vs Bhagirathi Banjare

Toran Lal Bhuarya Vs H.R. Som, District Education Officer, Bastar

Pemin Dewangan Vs R. K. Purohit

Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Janardan Giri Vs Girdhari Nayak

Parmeshwar Prasad Gupta Vs Ku. Rita Shandilya, (Secretary)