Allowed

Sham Lal Singla v. Kamal Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2013COCP/657/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a contempt petition regarding delayed medical reimbursement. The respondent proved the amount was released via an order dated 2.5.2013. The court held the petition infructuous and directed the petitioner to challenge the order for interest if dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition allowed and disposed of as rendered infructuous with a direction to approach the appropriate forum for interest if dissatisfied with the released amount.

Sham Lal Singla Vs Kamal Kumar — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

COCP 657 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

COCP 657 of 2013 Date of decision:-9.9.2013

Sham Lal Singla

Petitioner

vs.

Respondent

Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate. Mr. Anant Kataria, AAG, Punjab

¶10

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶11

As claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical bills was not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.5.2012 directing the Director Public Instructions (S.E.) Punjab to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

Through the instant, contempt petition, the petitioner claims that despite directions dated 16.5.2012, the representation of the petitioner has not been decided.

¶13

On notice having been issued to the respondent, reply has been filed to the effect that the representation of the petitioner has been decided for reimbursement of the medical expenses and that a sum of Rs.72,364 has now been released to the petitioner on the basis of order dated 2.5.2013 (Annexure R-1).

¶14

The claim of the petitioner having already been decided, the present contempt petition deserves to be disposed of as having been Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.09.12 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶15

COCP 657 of 2013

¶16

¶17

rendered infructuous.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner submits that interest on the delayed payment has not been granted and that the complete amount of medical expenses has not been released. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that there has been delay in the release of medical reimbursement amount. In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount ordered to be held admissible to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of order Annexure R-1 and seek interest on the delayed payment.

¶19

Disposed of.

¶20

September 9 ,2013 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

¶21

Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.09.12 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sham Lal Singla v. Kamal Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Lal Singla v. Kamal Kumar

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

Sarla Rani Vs Ravneet Kaur

Sulakhan Mal Vs Rajpal Meena and Anr.

Devender Mishtra Vs Hardayal Singh Maan and Ors.

Charan Kaur Vs D.S. Bains etc.

Satyawan Vs Tek Chand & etc.

O.P. Goyal and Anr. Vs Managing Director, Hvpnl Panchkula and Ors.