Disposed

Ms Geeta Weigh Bridge through Its Partner Sri Ashish Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Aug 2024Cont.(Cvl)/424/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case alleging violation of a writ order requiring AIADA to indemnify the petitioner for boundary wall costs. With AIADA's counsel undertaking to transfer the valuation amount to the account of the deceased proprietor's husband within two weeks, the court dropped the contempt proceeding and disposed of the case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ms Geeta Weigh Bridge through Its Partner Sri Ashish… — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.424 of 2021

¶2

¶3

M/S Geeta Weigh Bridge through its partner Ashish Agarwal, Adityapur, Seraikela-Kharsawan.

¶4

.......... Petitioner.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

1. State of Jharkhand 2. Yugal Choubey, Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur (AIADA), Adityapur, Seraikela-Kharsawan.

¶7

State of Jharkhand

¶8

Geeta Devi (deceased) through her husband Amod Prasad Ram.

¶9

.......... Opp. Parties.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

For the Petitioner : None For the State : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.V For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate For the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate ----- Order No.20 Date: 23.08.2024

¶13

The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for their wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 12^th September, 2019 passed in W.P. (C) No.2553 of 2010.

¶14

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that this Court vide order dated 12^th September, 2019 passed in W.P. (C) No.2553 of 2010 had directed the said opposite party to indemnify the cost incurred by the petitioner as per the valuation of the boundary wall available in the record of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority, Adityapur (AIADA), Adityapur, Seraikela-Kharsawan.

¶16

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.3 refers to the order dated 14^th May,

¶17

2024, whereby he was directed to seek appropriate instruction in the matter from the opposite party no.3 and to file an affidavit responding to the statements made in paragraph no.10 of the show cause affidavit dated 16^th January, 2024 filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The said paragraph is quoted as under:

¶18

“10. That vide letter No. 940/AR dated 17/08/2021 answering opposite party No. 2 has written letter to Mr. Ashish Agarwal stating therein that valuation of the cost for existing boundary wall of the then M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge, Plot No. 12 (part) in 5^th Phase measuring an area of 7,500 Sq.ft. has already been done by the Authority since Mr. Ashish Agarwal has got no locus standie in the matter hence the same could not be paid to him however Mrs. Geeta Devi the then proprietor of M/s. Geeta Weigh Bridge should be produced before the Authority at an earliest to receive the said valuation amount so that order of Hon’ble High Court could be complied, the said letter was acknowledged on 15/09/2021 through peon book.”

¶19

It is further submitted that an affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.3 has been filed on 10^th June, 2024, paragraph no.5 of which reads as under:

¶20

“5. That the given joint account no. 912010008361997 of Axis Bank, Giridih was in the name of this O.P. 3 and Geeta Devi. The name of Late Geeta Devi has been deleted from the said bank account after the death of Geeta Devi. Now, the said account is in the sole name of the O.P.3 namely Amod Prasad Ram.”

¶21

Mr. C.A. Bardhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the cost incurred by the petitioner as per the valuation of the boundary wall available in the record of the

¶22

-2- Cont. Case (Civil) No.424 of 2021

¶23

opposite party no.2 shall be transferred in the aforesaid account of the husband of the opposite party no.3 positively within two weeks.

¶24

Considering the said submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, there is no need to proceed further in the matter.

¶25

The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no.2 is hereby dropped.

¶26

The contempt case stands disposed of.

¶27

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶28

Vikas/Arpit

¶29

-3-

¶30

Cont. Case (Civil) No.424 of 2021

Ms Geeta Weigh Bridge through Its Partner Sri Ashish Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ms Geeta Weigh Bridge through Its Partner Sri Ashish Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fulchand Mahto Alias Phulchand Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basudev Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kausar Alam Alias Kishor Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Shankar Singh Binjhiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Humera Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand