Disposed

Som Nath Gupta v. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2009COCP/1725/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a contempt petition concerning the refusal to release withheld recovery funds. It directed the respondent to release the amount within one month upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond, noting that revival of the petition is permissible if the amount remains unreleased.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to release the withheld amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- within one month upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond.

Som Nath Gupta Vs Harcharanjit Kaur Brar — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

COCP No. 1725 of 2008 Date of decision: January 22, 2009

Som Nath Gupta

…..PETITIONER

Versus

Mrs Harcharanjit Kaur Brar.

¶7

…..RESPONDENT

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

¶9

PRESENT: Mr Surinder Garg, Advocate

¶10

Mr S.S.Sahu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

¶11

T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral):

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition so as to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for willfully disobeying and disregarding the order dated 21.1.2008. Vide said order, recovery from the petitioner was stayed till the next date of hearing in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, inspite of the aforementioned order, the respondent has effected recovery of Rs. 1,90,000/- from the gratuity of the petitioner.

¶13

Reply has been filed by the respondent. It has been mentioned therein that the recovery had already been effected from the petitioner much prior

¶14

to the filing of the writ petition, from which the present contempt proceedings have arisen. It has also been submitted therein that the recovered amount could be

¶15

released to the petitioner after getting indemnity bond from him to the effect that in the event of dismissal of his writ petition, he would deposit the amount.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall

¶17

furnish requisite indemnity bond so as to enable the Department to recover the amount from him in the event of dismissal of his writ petition.

¶18

COCP No. 1725 of 2008 -2-

¶19

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to release the with-held amount within a period of one month on furnishing of indemnity bond by the petitioner. Rule is discharged.

¶20

If the amount is not released within the prescribed time, it shall be

¶21

open to the petitioner to seek revival of the present petition.

¶22

January 22, 2009. Pds

¶23

(T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE

Som Nath Gupta v. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Nath Gupta v. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar

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

Gurjit Singh Vs Pardeep Kumar

Bakshish Singh Vs B.C. Gupta and Ors.

Gagandeep Kalra Vs K.B.S. Sidhu & Ors.

Tuli Chand Vs Pawan Kumar Rai

Dy.Commissioner,Ce Division Vs Dr.a.S.Bindra

Chanan Singh and Anr. Vs B.C. Gupta and Anr.