Partly allowed

Rohitash Meena v. Rajiv Mehrishi & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2016CONT.CAS(C)/720/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petitioner's application to withdraw a review/restoration application dismissed as a result of non-compliance. The order dated 28th March 2017 was recalled, and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs for recklessness.

What did the court decide?

CM Application No. 14572/2017 allowed; order dated 28th March 2017 recalled; Rs. 5,000 costs to respondents.

Rohitash Meena Vs Rajiv Mehrishi & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

33 $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 720/2015

¶4

ROHITASH MEENA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJIV MEHRISHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer, CRPF.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶8

O R D E R % 18.04.2017

¶9

CM Appls. 14570/2017, 14571/2017, 14572/2017 in Cont.Cas(C) 720/2015

¶10

While CM Appl. No. 14570/2017 has been filed by the respondents for recall and modification of the order dated 28^th March, 2017 issuing notice and directing personal presence of DIG (Admn.) in the Office of IGP, Northern Sector, CRPF, CM Appl. No. 14572/2017 has been filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of CM Appl. No. 12234/2017 which had been filed for review/restoration of contempt petition that had been disposed of in view of the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶11

It is the respondents’ allegation that petitioner misled this Court in CM Appl. No. 12234/2017 by stating that he had not received any amount mentioned in compliance affidavit filed by the respondents in the present

¶12

contempt petition. Respondents have also filed CM Appl. No. 14571/2017 to place on record a copy of the petitioner’s pay slip for the month of September, 2015 by which money had been deposited in petitioner’s account through ECS on 01^st October, 2015 in compliance with the Division Bench order dated 14^th October, 2014.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while filing CM Appl. No.12334/2017, petitioner had not checked his bank account as he was posted in the remote area.

¶14

This Court is of the view that even if the averments in the petitioner’s application are accepted then also it would show that the petitioner had been ‘reckless’ in filing CM Appl. No. 12234/2017 for restoration/review of the order dated 08^th January, 2016 by which the present contempt petition had been disposed of.

¶15

Consequently, CM Appl. No.14572/2017 for withdrawal of CM Appl. No. 12234/2017 is allowed and the order dated 28^th March, 2017 is recalled subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost by the petitioner to the respondents.

¶16

Accordingly, all other pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

The next date of hearing is cancelled.

¶18

MANMOHAN, J

¶19

APRIL 18, 2017 js

Rohitash Meena v. Rajiv Mehrishi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitash Meena v. Rajiv Mehrishi & Ors.

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

Manisha Sharma Vs H K L Jaggi & Ors.

Karamjjit Jaiswal Vs Anand Pershad Jaiswal

K P Gupta Vs Dinesh Singh & Ors.

Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. Vs Gauri Kumar (Secretary), Union of India & Anr.

Shri Devender Kaushik & Ors. Vs S Manmohan Singh Dhingra, Manager

Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary Vs Arun Goel & Anr.

Damini Kapoor Chintamani Vs Kartik Chintamani & Anr.

Sanatam Dharam Sabha Laxmi Narain Temple Trust Vs Shanti Devi

Manisha Sharma Vs H K L Jaggi & Ors.

Karamjjit Jaiswal Vs Anand Pershad Jaiswal

K P Gupta Vs Dinesh Singh & Ors.

Mahender Pal Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Amandeep Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Gakko Bunka Education Society Vs Manish Gupta