Nathu Ram Vs Prof. Rama Arora

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782-2018.

¶14

Vide order dated 12.09.2024, the following direction was issued by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782-2018:-

¶15

“11. After having considered all the relevant aspects and submissions of learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.6 lakh compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, would suffice. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within a period of 30 days, from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of the award i.e. 13.08.2009.”

¶16

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

COCP-548-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

The respondent filed review application i.e. RA-LP No.26 of 2025 in LPA No.1782 of 2018, whereby, the above referred to order dated 12.09.2024 was reviewed and modified by the Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 31.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said order dated 31.07.2025 is reproduced as under:-

¶20

“5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record and also considering the fact that the judgment dated 12.09.2024 was passed in the presence of learned counsel representing respondent No.2, it would not be appropriate for respondent No.2 to plead that he/she was not aware of the passing of the judgment. However, considering the fact that during pendency of the proceedings the applicant-respondent No.2 had already paid the compensation awarded vide judgment dated 12.09.2024 amounting to 6 lakh by way₹ of cheque dated 19.02.2025 to the petitioner, the instant application is disposed of by modifying the para No.11 of the judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed in LPA No. 1782 of 2018 to the extent as under:-

¶21

“11. After having considered all the relevant aspects and submissions of learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs. 6 lakh compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, would suffice. The said amount shall be paid to the workman within a period of 30 days, from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of passing of this order i.e. 12.09.2024.”

¶22

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

COCP-548-2025 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1782-2018 has been complied with. It is further submitted that on 06.03.2025, respondent handed over a cheque No.673672 dated 19.02.2025, drawn on the State Bank of India, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs only) to learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, the respondent has brought and handed over a cheque bearing No.532842 dated 26.08.2025, drawn on the State Bank of India, amounting to Rs.23,150/- to the learned counsel for the petitioner towards interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of passing of the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in LPA-1782-2018, as clarified/modified vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RA-LP-26-2025.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the payment made to the petitioner and the compliance of aforesaid order dated 12.09.2024, which was modified vide order dated 31.07.2025 by the Division Bench of this Court in RA-LP-26-2025. He submits that order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-17822018, as clarified/modified vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RA-LP-26-2025, has been complied with. 6. Consequently, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged.

¶27

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

COCP-548-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2025 and prays that liberty be granted to the petitioner to pursue further, after the decision of the SLP.

¶30

In view of the above, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy as is available to him in accordance with law, after the decision of the SLP.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶32

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

¶33

04.09.2025 Virender

¶34

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.09.05 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nathu Ram v. Prof. Rama Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Ram v. Prof. Rama Arora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baljinder Singh Vs Showkat Ahmad Parray and Another

Balbir and Others Vs Suman Kadian and Others

Avtar Singh and Others Vs Mankanwal Singh Chahal and Another

Matrix Infosys Trhough Its Proprietor Vs Mr. Sk Mishra, Registrar, Punjab Technical Univsersity

Hakam Singh and Others Vs Harwinder Kaur and Others

Sukhvinder Singh Vs Ms. Anindita Mitra & Others