Allowed

Bhupinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration & or.S

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2012CWP/20810/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concludes a writ petition by punishing the respondent under the Contempts of Court Act for untruthful conduct regarding the production of documents. The court dismissed the respondent's defence, allowed the petition, and imposed costs on the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Relief allowed; respondent sentenced to appear in court until rising; respondent burdened with costs of Rs. 50,000.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Chandigarh Administration & or.S — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.20810 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.20810 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 16-05-2011

Bhupinder Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Chandigarh Administration through its Estate Officer and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr. Namit Kumar , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 5

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶12

Pursuant to a detailed order passed by this Court on 15.5.2012 and in view of the undertaking furnished by the respondent no. 5, the documents i.e. allotment letter, possession letter and photocopies of the receipts have been produced in the Court and have been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner who has verified the same and has expressed his satisfaction.

¶13

This would have satisfied the prayer which was made in the petition but the Court is extremely anguished at the conduct of the respondent no.5 who has all throughout the proceedings projected that he was not in possession of the documents. But once it noticed that his conduct was contumacious and an order was passed, he has produced these documents with a flourish. Till yesterday i.e 15.5.2012 he was maintaining

¶14

CWP No.20810 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶15

that he was not having any documents in his possession and rather his counsel was more than vehement in this regard.

¶16

The Court does not approve of the conduct of the respondent no.5 where he has been blatantly untruthful and tried to obstruct the course of justice. The facts in fact reveal contempt in the face of the Court and therefore cannot be overlooked and ignored. Respondent no.5 who was present yesterday and is also present today in Court has no explanation to offer which would satisfy the Court and offset his reprehensible conduct.

¶17

The Court is, therefore of the opinion that it is a clear case where the said respondent no.5 should be punished under Section 12 of the Contempts of Court Act.

¶18

He is therefore sentenced to be in Court till the rising of the

¶19

Court.

¶20

The Court also wishes to observe here that the conduct of the respondent no.5 has resulted in undue wastage of public time where the controversy and the prayer made in the writ petition hardly warranted the interference of a Court in writ jurisdiction. Respondent no.4 – Society having lost its claim to the title of the property in validly conducted auction proceedings, which was never challenged by it, has no right to possess itself of the documents and should ordinarily have delivered the same on the asking of the rightful purchaser. Rather it chose to cling on to these documents and force the auction purchaser into litigation which consumed more than 6 months and resulted in spending valuable time of the Court. Most of the time consumed was on account of the stubbornness and blatant untruthful attitude of respondent no.5 in parting with the documents for which he has no use, given the transfer of title in favour of the petitioner

¶21

CWP No.20810 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶22

and for this reason, the Court feels that the petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The respondent no.5 is burdened with costs which are assessed as Rs.50,000/- for wasting the time of the Court and for forcing the petitioner into unwarranted litigation, which shall be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of one week from today.

¶23

CJM, Panchkula shall ensure the recovery of the costs.

¶24

May 16, 2012 rekha

¶25

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Bhupinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration & or.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Singh v. Chandigarh Administration & or.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjeet Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

P.S.E.B. Patiala and Ors. Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapa and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Vs U.T. Adm. & Ors.

Amarjeet Singh Vs Surina Rajan & Ors.

Jaskirat Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amar Pal Vs State of Haryana and Others