B a Tata Vs Punya Salila Srivastav & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

B a Tata Vs Punya Salila Srivastav & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No punitive relief; petition disposed of with the Court's finding that the directions were complied with, petitioner given liberty to pursue grievances against the speaking order before an appropriate forum/Court, and pending application(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are guilty of contempt for willful disobedience/non-compliance of this Court's directions dated 06.09.2017 in W.P.(C) 7773/2017 requiring consideration of, and communication of a decision on, the petitioner's representations.

Court's answer

The Court concluded that the directions issued on 06.09.2017 in W.P.(C) 7773/2017 (considering the petitioner's representations and communicating the decision) have been complied with by the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the speaking order passed, he will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate forum/Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — compliance found; petition disposed. Delhi High Court (Amit Sharma, J.), CONT.CAS(C) 281/2018, order dated 30.04.2026: B A Tata petitioned under Sections 11 and 12 (and invoked Section 2(b)) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution seeking punishment of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for willful disobedience of the Court's directions dated 06.09.2017 in W.P.(C) 7773/2017, whereby those respondents were to consider the petitioner's representations and communicate their decisions. Affidavits showed respondent nos. 1 and 2 passed a speaking order on 12.06.2018, and respondent nos. 3 and 4 disposed of the representation by communications dated 04.09.2018 and 10.08.2018. The Court held the directions had been complied with; the petitioner was left free to challenge the speaking order through appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum/Court. Pending applications stood disposed of. No contemnor was punished and no precedent was cited.

$~23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CONT.CAS(C) 281/2018

B A TATA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. through Vc.

versus

PUNYA SALILA SRIVASTAV & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. for R-1, 2 and 4. Mr. Pranay, Adv. for Ms. Mrinalini Sen, SC for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 30.04.2026

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

The present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeks the following prayers: -

“a) Hold the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 /Alleged Contemnors guilty of contempt under Section 2 (b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts of Act, 1971 as well as under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and punish accordingly for willful disobedience and defiance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 06.09.2017 rendered in Writ Petition (C) No. 7773/2017; and/or,

b) grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and in the circumstance of the case.”

Vide order dated 06.09.2017 in W.P.(C) 7773/2017, the following directions were passed: -

Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32

“5. This Court is not inclined to entertain the controversy regarding the allegations made by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has already made representations before respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, they (that is, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4) are directed to consider the same and if warranted, take such action as required in accordance with law.

The said respondents shall also communicate their decision in that regard to the petitioner. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition.”

Affidavit of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been placed on record, wherein it has been stated that the speaking order on the basis of the representation was passed on 12.06.2018. The said order has been reproduced herein for the sake of completeness: -

Page 2 of 7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32

Page 3 of 7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32

Page 4 of 7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32

Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32

Similarly, respondent nos. 3 and 4 have placed on record their affidavits, whereby petitioner’s representation was disposed of by way of the communications dated 04.09.2018 and 10.08.2018, respectively.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the decision taken is not in accordance with law.

The present contempt proceedings have been initiated for noncompliance of the aforesaid directions with respect to decision on petitioner’s representation.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the directions have been complied with and if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the speaking order passed, he will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, before appropriate forum/Court.

The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

AMIT SHARMA, J

APRIL 30, 2026/ kr/ah

Page 7 of 7

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 11:46:32