This contempt petition challenging the failure to pay a sum ordered during original proceedings was adjudged. The court held that the order was complied with and the dispute should be decided on merits. The petition was disposed of with the discharge of notice.
The petition stands disposed of and notice is discharged.
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.
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 26 of 2010
Decided on: 1.7.2010.
Anju Gupta …Petitioner Versus
J.R.Gupta and another .Respondents/Contemnors.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. C. N. Singh, with Mr. A. K.Jain, Advocates. For the respondents / : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. Contemnors.
Kuldip Singh , Judge (Oral)
This petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for willfully disobeying order dated 5.1.2010 passed in Cr.MMO No.88 of 2009. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that only a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/has been paid out of Rs. 4,20,000/- observed in the order dated 5.1.2010 and balance amount has not been paid. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of order dated 5.1.2010 only an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was to be paid inasmuch as Rs. 1,20,000/- was already paid as has been observed in the order dated 5.1.2010 itself. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes
2
the respondents that after 5.1.2010 an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been paid, the details of which have been given in Annexure C-2. In para 4 of the reply it has been stated that KVPs and NSC amounting to Rs. 1,90,000/- and demand draft of Rs. 1,10,000/- total amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to petitioner under receipt dated 14.1.2010 (Annexure C-2).
2. The purpose of the order dated 5.1.2010 was to give some amount to the petitioner and her children during the pendency of the original proceedings which are still pending in the Court below. In contempt proceeding not only violation of order is to be proved but it is further to be established that such violation is willful. In substance the order dated 5.1.2010 has been complied with. The Court below shall adjudicate the dispute between the parties on merits and the order dated 5.1.2010 shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of, notice discharged.
CMP No. 126 of 2010
Infructuous.
( Kuldip Singh ) Judge.
July 1, 2010.(GR)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the payment made to the petitioner amounts to willful disobedience of the order dated 5.1.2010.
Anju Gupta
J.R. Gupta
another
Kuldip Singh, Judge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
