The High Court of Delhi recorded a view that respondents did not commit contempt in light of a sanction order but directed deposit of 5% shares with 95% to be released and continued payment of sanctioned strength.
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.
$~34
DELHI TAMIL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Shantha Devi Raman and Mr. Dheeraj, Advs.
versus
VIJAY KUMAR DEV & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Ghose, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Urvi Mohan, Mr. Rhishabh Jetley and Mr. Bubu Ram, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT O R D E R % 05.07.2019
In view of the sanction order dated 30.05.2019 passed pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Government and order passed by this Court, I am of the view that the respondents have not committed any contempt. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall deposit 5 per cent of the share and the amount due shall be released by adding 95 per cent, within two weeks from today.
I further make it clear that respondent shall continue to pay for the sanctioned strength at least for one year in terms of order dated 05.12.2018. CONT.CAS(C) is disposed of accordingly.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
JULY 05, 2019/ ms
DELHI TAMIL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
VIJAY KUMAR DEV
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
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
