Dismissed

Shyam Lal and Ors. v. Anil Malik and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2024COCP/3100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Contempt of Court petition arising from alleged non-compliance of a prior order, the respondent provided an undertaking to register sale deeds and deliver possession within specified timelines. The petitioner withdrew the petition based on this assurance, and the court dismissed the matter.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; rule discharged. Liberty to revive if undertaking is breached and seek costs of Rs. 20,000 per petitioner.

Shyam Lal and Ors. Vs Anil Malik and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

259

¶3

COCP-3100-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2024

SHYAM LAL AND ORS

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

ANIL MALIK AND ORS

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present : Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Manish Dadwal, Asstt. A.G. Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.6.

¶13

¶14

HARKESH MANUJA. J. (Oral)

¶15

By way of present petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt proceedings are sought to be initiated against the respondents towards alleged willful non-compliance of order dated 24.02.2021 passed by this Court in CWP-22085-2020.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the respondents on instructions submits that the necessary portal for the purposes of registration of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners with respect to 100 sq.yds. plots shall become operational within a period of two days from today and the sale deeds shall be registered in their favour along with delivery of possession thereof within a period of 10 days from today.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid undertaking, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition.

¶18

Dismissed as not pressed.

¶19

Rule stands discharged.

¶20

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.09.26 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶21

-2-

¶22

COCP-3100-2023 (O&M)

¶23

However, in case the needful is not done within the aforementioned period, as per the undertaking, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of contempt petition and in that eventuality, the erring/concerned officer would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of each petitioner towards litigation expenses, immediately i.e. on the first date of listing of revival application.

¶24

	(HA	RKESH MANUJA) JUDGE
��
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/ No

¶25

SANDAL SHARMA 2024.09.26 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Shyam Lal and Ors. v. Anil Malik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Lal and Ors. v. Anil Malik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narender Singh and Others Vs Jitender Kadian Chief Medical Officer, of Civil Hospital Panipat and Others

Barinder Singh Alias Ballu Vs State of Punjab

Lal Chand Vs Harcharan Singh

Deepa Devi and Others Vs Manoj Kumar, IAS , Sonepat

Dr Tarun Prasad Vs Sh Sudhir Rajpal

Amin @ Aamin @ Ameen (Since Deceased) Trhough His Lr'S Vs Haroon