Dismissed

Captain Priyank Basanwal v. Vikram Dev Dutt & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2026CONT.CAS(C)/142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of earlier writ orders. Finding that underlying writs were withdrawn without adjudication on merits and that statutory dues had been released, the Court held no contempt proceedings could continue.

What did the court decide?

The petitions are disposed of as no contempt proceedings can be continued given the withdrawal of underlying writs and payment of dues.

Captain Priyank Basanwal Vs Vikram Dev Dutt & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~23 & 24

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 02^nd September, 2026

¶4

# CNR No. DLHC010521502022

¶5

CONT.CAS(C) 113/2022 CAPTAIN MOHIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocate (through VC) versus VIKRAM DEV DUTT & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Azeem Samuel, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Vaibhav, Mr. Shivam Goel, Mr. Mujeeb Ur. Rehman and Ms. Shrijeta Pratik, Advocates

¶6

¶7

# CNR No. DLHC010054142022

¶8

CONT.CAS(C) 142/2022 CAPTAIN PRIYANK BASANWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocate (through VC) versus VIKRAM DEV DUTT & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Azeem Samuel, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Vaibhav, Mr. Shivam Goel, Mr. Mujeeb Ur. Rehman and Ms. Shrijeta Pratik, Advocates

¶9

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

¶10

Page 1 of 7

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶13

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

¶14

The present petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgments dated 28^th May, 2021, and 31^st May, 2021, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5430/2020 , and W.P.(C) 5439/2020 , respectively.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents draws the attention of this Court to the aforesaid judgment dated 28^th May, 2021, passed in W.P. (C) 5430/2020 , which reads as under:

¶16

“

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

”

¶20

Similarly, learned counsel for the respondents further draws the attention of this Court to the judgment 31^st May, 2021, passed in W.P. (C) 5439/2020 , which reads as under:

¶21

“xxx xxx xxx

¶22

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 3 of 7

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

¶26

Page 4 of 7

¶27

”

¶28

Perusal of the aforesaid judgments shows that the writ petitions were withdrawn by the respective petitioners and there was not adjudication on merits on the amounts payable to the petitioners which was claimed by them.

¶29

There were directions to the respondents to release the statutory dues, arrears of salary, or any other outstanding claims, if any, towards the petitioners, in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is clear that there were no specific directions for any specific amounts to be paid to the petitioners under any particular head, except general directions regarding payment of their dues, if any. Thus, it is evident that discretion was left with the respondents herein to calculate the dues payable to the petitioners, if any, as per their consideration.

¶30

This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the statutory dues, as calculated by the respondents, have already been released to the petitioners.

¶31

Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 16^th February, 2022, passed in CONT.CAS(C) 113/2022 , which reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 5 of 7

¶34

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

¶35

”

¶36

The aforesaid order categorically records the fact of payment of statutory dues to the petitioner.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the statutory dues have been paid to the petitioners in both the matters. 10. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Compliance Affidavit dated 11^th January, 2023, filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been stated as follows:

¶38

“xxx xxx xxx

¶39

xxx xxx xxx”

¶40

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

¶41

Page 6 of 7

¶42

Perusal of the aforesaid Compliance Affidavit shows that, in CONT.CAS(C) 142/2022 , amount towards the Provident Fund (“PF”) dues as well as the outstanding dues towards the Bank Guarantee, have been released to the petitioner therein.

¶43

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no Compliance Affidavit has been filed by the respondents as regards the arrears of salary and other claims of the petitioners.

¶44

However, it is to be noted that since both the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, and there was no adjudication on the dues payable by the respondents to the respective petitioners as per the pleas raised by them, no contempt proceedings can be continued against the respondents. 14. The petitioners, however, are at liberty to seek their remedies in accordance with law to seek any dues, which according to them are due and payable to them by the respondents.

¶45

Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, the present petitions are disposed of.

¶46

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶47

SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/ ak

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Page 7 of 7

¶50

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 6.09.2026 16:18:56

Captain Priyank Basanwal v. Vikram Dev Dutt & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Captain Priyank Basanwal v. Vikram Dev Dutt & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravesh Yadav Vs Principal Registrar Cat & Anr.

Tilak Teacher Training College (for Women) Vs Professor Shailesh N. Zala, Chairman Western Regional Committee National Council for Teacher Educat

Mrs. Manmeet Sumra Chonker Vs Mr. Vipal Kumar Farmah & Anr.

Ms Anita Rai & Ors. Vs Mr Paramvir Singh Rai & Anr.

Nirmal Tower Building Occupants Welfare Society (Regd) Vs Sumit Gakhar & Anr.

Shri Raj Kumar Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Jaya Ramraj Upadhyay Balika Mahavidyalaya Vs Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Iofs, Member Secretary, Ncte and Anr.

Naval Kumar Rai Vs Sh Gyanesh Bharti and Anr.