Disposed¶7

MD Sayuz Anzari v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Jan 2024Cont.(Cvl)/589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt proceeding; willful disobedience; W.P.(S) No. 2085 of 2016; professional fee; bill verification; reasoned order; memo no. 97 (i) dated 13.05.2023; supplementary show cause affidavit dated 23.08.2023; Annexure-A; bank account details; Basant Kumar Chandravancy fee claim not admissible; meagre professional fee; contempt proceeding dropped; contempt petition disposed of; recourse as permissible under law; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Rajesh Shankar; decision date 09.01.2024.

What did the court decide?

Dropping of the contempt proceeding against the opposite parties and liberty granted to the petitioners, if dissatisfied with the amount of fee calculated by the opposite parties, to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law. ¶7

MD Sayuz Anzari Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the opposite parties for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 10.11.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2085 of 2016. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the supplementary show cause affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2, the presiding judge saw no reason to further proceed in the contempt petition; the contempt proceeding against the opposite parties is thereby dropped.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶7

Key takeaways

If the petitioners are not satisfied with the amount of fee calculated by the opposite parties, they are at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law; the adequacy of the fee calculation is not adjudicated in this contempt petition but left to such recourse.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Rajesh Shankar, J.), Contempt Case (Civil) No. 589 of 2021, decided 09.01.2024: contempt proceeding alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 10.11.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2085 of 2016, concerning payment of professional fee to five petitioners. Counsel for opposite party no. 2 referred to a supplementary show cause affidavit dated 23.08.2023 recording that, after due verification of the petitioners' bill, a reasoned order detailing the amounts of the due bill had been passed vide memo no. 97 (i) dated 13.05.2023 (annexed as Annexure-A), with disbursement to follow furnishing of bank account details; counsel further stated that petitioner no. 4's (Basant Kumar Chandravancy) fee claim was not found admissible while other petitioners had not furnished bank details. Petitioners contended the professional fee was improperly calculated and a meagre amount was being paid. Finding no reason to further proceed on perusal of the affidavit, the court dropped the contempt proceeding against the opposite parties and disposed of the petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law if dissatisfied with the fee calculation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 589 of 2021

¶2

Md. Sayuz Anzari

¶3

Dular Nag

¶4

Shankar Banerjee

¶5

Basant Kumar Chandravancy

¶6

Shishir Kumar Sinha … … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Sri Rajiv Arun Ekka, Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶10

Sri Chhavi Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶11

Manish Kumar Singh, Registrar, Civil Court, Ranchi

¶12

… … Opposite Parties

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III

¶15

-----

¶16

11/09.01.2024 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiating

¶17

a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite parties

¶18

alleging willful disobedience of order dated 10.11.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2085 of 2016.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 10.11.2020 passed in the aforesaid writ petition has not been fully complied by the opposite parties, as they have not properly calculated the amount of fee.

¶20

3. Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, refers to the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 23.08.2023 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, paragraph no. 7 of which reads as under:

¶21

7. That it is stated and most humbly submitted that after due verification of the bill of the petitioners, a reasoned order has been passed by the answering respondent regarding detail amounts of the due bill of the petitioners, vide memo no. 97 (i) dated 13.05.2023, and

¶22

the same will be disbursed to the Bank Account of the petitioners, after the bank account details furnished by the petitioners.

¶23

A copy of memo no. 97 (i) dated 13.05.2023 along with date wise details of the bill of the petitioners has been annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary show cause affidavit.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submits that as per the said order of the opposite party no. 2, the claim of the petitioner no. 4 – Basant Kumar Chandravancy for payment of fee has not been found admissible, whereas rest of the petitioners, in whose favour certain amount of professional fee has been found admissible, have not furnished their bank details so as to transfer the said amount in their respective bank accounts.

¶25

5. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite parties have not properly calculated the professional fee of the petitioners and a meagre amount of professional fee is being paid to them.

¶26

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the supplementary show cause affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, I see no reason to further proceed in the contempt petition. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped.

¶27

7. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

8. However, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the

¶29

amount of fee calculated by the opposite parties, they are at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law.

¶30

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶31

Manish

MD Sayuz Anzari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Sayuz Anzari v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited Thr Its Project in Charge Mr Arvind Kumar Vs M Nagaraju the Additional Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Coal

Quazi Shakeel Ekta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Khalique Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumari Neelam Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Alakh Narayan Shukla Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Inspector General of Police