Dismissed

Randhir Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Jul 2013MJC/1865/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Class 1 contempt petition filed against respondents for non-compliance with a previous judicial order delaying payment. After accepting their plea of apology and assurance of future compliance, the Court issued only a warning and awarded no punishment.

What did the court decide?

Contemnors let off with a warning not to repeat conduct; no monetary penalty imposed.

Randhir Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1865 of 2011 ====================================================== Randhir Kumar, son of Sri Ramanand Thakur, Resident of Village – Balapur, P.O. – Birsinghpur, P.S. – Kalyanpur, District – Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri Aag11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER ***************

¶2

12. 24.07.2013 This Court can show compassion to the contemnors, provided they show compassion to an ordinary litigant or a citizen.

¶3

A proceeding for contempt had to be initiated against all these OPs, because they refused to abide by the judicial direction passed earlier in a writ application. It is only after the Court took a grim view of their conduct in not implementing the Order and resistance was put up by them without proper explanation for delay of almost 13 months in carrying out the order that they were ordered to appear in person and explain their conduct by filing separate affidavits explaining the reasons thereof.

¶4

After many rounds of exchange of affidavits, and standard plea of apology, with no satisfactory explanation, coming from them, the Court came to a considered onion that these contemnors do not deserve

¶5

Patna High Court MJC No.1865 of 2011 (12) dt.24-07-2013 2/2

¶6

the mercy, which they are looking for, not only for the reason that they are in breach of the Court’s Order, but also for the fact that they have shown no emotion and feeling for an ordinary citizen, who despite getting a judicial order in his favour, was allowed to remain on the road.

¶7

Affidavits have been filed today, indicating that the payments have now accrued to the petitioner, which has been accepted by the counsel for the petitioner to be correct and a plea for mercy is again being made on their behalf by learned Additional Advocate General No. 11.

¶8

The Court was of the opinion that this was one of those matters, where some punishment ought to have visited them, but since the contemnors in unanimity have assured this Court that they will be more sensitive to the citizens of this country as well as treat judicial orders with more respect and promptitude in future, they are let off with a warning not to repeat such conduct in future.

¶9

Contempt Application is disposed off.

¶10

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

¶11

SKM/-

Randhir Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Girija Nandan Singh @ Girija N Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Naresh Prasad Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sheo Shankar Rai Vs Sheo Prasad Shah and Ors.

Docsuns Services Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Baban Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kishun Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.