Kandla Projects Private Limited through Its Director Sanjay Goyal Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Mr P M Prasad — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Kandla Projects Private Limited through Its Director Sanjay Goyal Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Mr P M Prasad — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceeding against opposite party no. 2 dropped; petitioner left at liberty to take appropriate recourse with regard to its subsisting claim as permissible under law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt proceeding against opposite party no. 2, filed for initiation over alleged wilful violation of the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1694 of 2020, needed to be taken forward.

Court's answer

Considering counsel's submission that the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1694 of 2020 has been complied, the Court held there is no need to further proceed in the present contempt matter.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶5
The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse with regard to its subsisting claim as permissible under law.obiter¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CONTEMPT PROCEEDING — DROPPED AND PETITION DISPOSED OF. Cont. Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2021, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Rajesh Shankar, J.; Order No. 08 dated 25.01.2024): contempt petition by Kandla Projects Private Limited (through Director Sanjay Goyal) against opposite party no. 2, Mr. N.K. Singh, General Manager (B&K), Central Coalfields Ltd., Kargali, District-Bokaro, alleging wilful violation of the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1694 of 2020. Counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that, in compliance of that order, the points raised in the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2020 were considered by CCL and an office order was passed on 18.01.2021, intimated vide letter no. 1437 dated 18.01.2021 issued by the Project Officer, Giridih Project, Giridih Area, CCL, Giridih (Annexure-A to the show cause affidavit dated 30.03.2022). Considering the said submission, the Court held there was no need to proceed further, dropped the contempt proceeding against opposite party no. 2, and disposed of the contempt petition, leaving the petitioner at liberty to take appropriate recourse regarding its subsisting claim as permissible under law. No counsel appeared for the petitioner; no statute or precedent was cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2021

---

Kandla Projects Private Limited having its registered office at Gandhidham, District- Kutch (Gujrat) through its Director namely Sanjay Goyal … … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Mr. N.K. Singh, General Manager (B&K), Central Coalfields Ltd. Kargali, District- Bokaro

…. … Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

For the Petitioner : None

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate

Order No. 08 Dated: 25.01.2024

The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no. 2 alleging willful violation of order dated 29.09.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1694 of 2020.

2. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, submits that in compliance of aforesaid order of this Court, the points raised by the petitioner in its representation dated 21.10.2020 were considered by the concerned authority of the opposite party-Central Coalfields Limited and an office order was passed on 18.01.2021 which was intimated to the petitioner vide letter no. 1437 dated 18.01.2021 issued by the Project Officer, Giridih Project, Giridih Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Giridih (Annexure-A to the show cause affidavit dated 30.03.2022 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2). It is thus submitted that the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1694 of 2020 has been complied.

3. Considering the said submission, there is no need to further proceed in the present contempt matter.

4. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party

no. 2 is hereby dropped.

5. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

6. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse with regard to its subsisting claim as permissible under law.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

Ritesh/