The Division Bench dismissed a contempt petition alleging breach of an undertaking given in 2005. The Court held the undertaking was not perpetual and the petition was barred by limitation.
The contempt petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
11 $~
DAMODAR BHAGAT ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Zahid Dar, Advocate.
versus
YOGENDER TRIPATHI ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 08.11.2016
CM Appl. 41614/2016 (exemption) in Cont.Cas(C) 1186/2016
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Cont.Cas(C) 1186/2016
Present contempt petition has been filed alleging breach of Undertaking given by the respondent before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 682/2004 on 15th September, 2005. By the said Undertaking, respondent had agreed to maintain a seniority list of surplus labour at Gill Road Depot, Ludhiana and as and when there was requirement of additional labour, the petitioner was to be given work at the said depot.
In the petition, it has been averred that despite the aforesaid Undertaking, the respondent brought fourteen handling labourers from outside Ludhiana to work at the Gill Road Depot on 01st October, 2015.
This Court is of the view that petitioner is reading an Undertaking given before the Division on 15th September, 2005 as a Statute. In the opinion of this Court, the Undertaking before the Division Bench is not an Undertaking in perpetuity. Also, after eleven years how can one say that petitioner is fit enough to be deployed as a handling labourer.
In any event, the period of limitation for filing the contempt petition is one year. The contempt petition filed after a lapse of eleven years is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 08, 2016 js
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an undertaking given eleven years ago can be read as a statute and enforced via contempt proceedings after the expiry of the limitation period.
Damodar Bhagat
Yogender Tripathi
Manmohan
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
