Dismissed

Pritam Singh v. Ved Parkash Taneja & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2019COCP/2037/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with an order directing a speaking order on a legal notice. The Court held that the direction to decide the notice was complied with and noted that the petitioner could challenge the payment order separately if dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; rule issued against respondent stands discharged.

Pritam Singh Vs Ved Parkash Taneja & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CM-7509-CII-2019 in/and COCP-2037-2016

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

117+209

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CM-7509-CII-2019 in/and COCP-2037-2016 Date of Decision: April 02, 2019

¶6

Pritam Singh .....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ved Parkash Taneja and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶11

Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

¶13

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶14

CM-7509-CII-2019

¶15

Additional affidavit and resolution dated 16.08.2018 are taken

¶16

on record.

¶17

CM stands disposed of.

¶18

COCP-2037-2016

¶19

The contempt is filed for non-compliance of the order dated 04.11.2015 vide which a direction was issued to the competent authority to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order.

¶20

No doubt the speaking order had been passed at the time of filing of the contempt petition but while issuing notice, the learned Single Judge noted that although claim of the petitioner was allowed but the amount due to the petitioner has not been paid.

¶21

Reply has been filed. The amount paid to the petitioner has MEENU 2019.04.04 10:58 been mentioned in para No.3 of the said reply. Learned counsel for the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶22

CM-7509-CII-2019 in/and COCP-2037-2016 - 2 -

¶23

petitioner, however, states that the same is not the entire payment and some amount is still due. The said fact has been dealt with by the respondents in their speaking order as also in their additional affidavit placed on record as Annexure R-2/5 stating therein that the payment till now paid to the petitioner has been calculated as per the last drawn pay. The remaining record is not available with them and that the same was with the petitioner himself being custodian of the record.

¶24

Be that as it may, the only direction of this Court was to decide the legal notice which has been done vide order dated 24.02.2016.

¶25

In this view of the matter, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. The same is, accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Rule issued against the respondent stands discharged.

¶27

However, in case the petitioner is still dis-satisfied with any part of the said order or there is any discrepancy in the payment or the same is not as per his claim, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶28

April 02, 2019 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) meenuss JUDGE

¶29

1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

¶30

MEENU 2019.04.04 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Pritam Singh v. Ved Parkash Taneja & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. Ved Parkash Taneja & 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

Puran Singh Sandhu Vs Sh. Satish Chandra & Ors.

Amarjit Singh etc. Vs Charanjit Singh etc.

M/S Dharampal Contractors Vs Anirudh Tewari and Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs O.P.Singh

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Dr Nirmaljit Singh Kalsi Additional Chief Secretary

Rozy Sharma Vs Abhilaksh Lekhi & Anr.