Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Feb 2021Cont.(Cvl)/572/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt application filed for violation of an order in a writ petition, the court noted that admitted dues had already been paid. It dropped the contempt proceeding against the respondent while allowing the petitioner to contest remaining claims separately.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceeding against opposite party no. 2 is dropped and the case is disposed of.

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case (Civil) no. 572 of 2019

¶3

Pankaj Kumar Singh …Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Sri Rahul Sharma, The Chief Engineer, Department of Tourism, Government of Jharkhand

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Range, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi ... Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :- Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C. to A.G.

¶10

10/12.02.2021

¶11

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

¶12

The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no. 2 for wilful violation of the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) no. 3433 of 2018.

¶13

Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that pursuant to order dated 17.09.2018 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the opposite party no. 4 passed the reasoned order dated 25.09.2019 and subsequent thereto, the admitted dues of Rs.13,51,077/-(Rs.7,35,296/- earlier deducted from the petitioner’s bill due to delayed completion of work and security amount of Rs.6,15,781/-) has already been paid to the petitioner. Hence, the present contempt proceeding may be dropped against the opposite parties.

¶14

Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, accepts the fact that the amount of Rs.13,51,077/- pursuant to order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the opposite party no. 4 has been paid to the petitioner.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, there is no need to further proceed in the present contempt matter. The contempt proceeding against the opposite party no. 2 is hereby dropped.

¶16

The contempt case is, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the opposite no. 4 rejecting his rest of the claims, as permissible under law.

¶17

I.A. No. 5145 of 2020 also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶19

Ritesh

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Shankar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narayan Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department

Sourav Kumar Verma Minor Represented through His Father Sri Shyam Kishore Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resource Development Department

Sohan Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Puja Kumari Vs Jitendra Kumar Mahto

Jitendra Hembrom Vs the Eastern Coalfield Limited Represented through the General Manager