Dismissed

Munna Lal Hans v. Tara Chand Meena and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 May 2013WCP/696/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench held that the petitioner's complaint regarding the computation of interest in retiral dues was an abuse of contempt jurisdiction. It is not the role of the contempt court to convert the matter into a money recovery suit. The authorities had complied with the court's direction to consider the representation, so the contempt petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed; costs were not imposed on the petitioner; notices were discharged.

Munna Lal Hans Vs Tara Chand Meena and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

S.B.C.C.P. No.696/2011 in S.B.C.W.P. No.7896/2007 Munna Lal Hans Vs. Tara Chand Meena & Anr.

¶2

Order dt: 03/05/2013

¶3

1/3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

ORDER

¶6

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.696/2011

¶7

Munna Lal Hans Vs. Tara Chand Meena & Anr.

¶8

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7896/2007

¶10

Munna Lal Hans Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶11

rd DATE OF ORDER ::: 03 May 2013

¶12

P R E S E N T

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶14

Mr. Vipul Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate & AAG with Mr. Jamvant Gurjar, for the respondents.

¶15

¶16

1. The present contempt petition arises out of order dated 25.01.2011, by which, a coordinate bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the following terms: -

¶17

“Mr. S.K. Sharma, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pipar City is present in person.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in compliance of the order dated 4^th of September, 2009, an order has already been made and as per their assessment, interest amount of Rs.39,227/- has been paid to the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest paid to the petitioner has not been rightly calculated by the respondents.

¶19

According to learned counsel for the respondents, compliance of order dated 4^th of Sept., 2009 has been made.

¶20

S.B.C.C.P. No.696/2011 in S.B.C.W.P. No.7896/2007 Munna Lal Hans Vs. Tara Chand Meena & Anr.

¶21

Order dt: 03/05/2013

¶22

2/3

¶23

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is hereby disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file representation to respondents, if he has any grievance with regard to assessment of interest amount paid to him and upon filing said representation, it is expected from respondents to decide the said representation within one month from the date of filing of representation.

¶24

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed

¶25

of.”

¶26

2. The contempt petition was filed purportedly on the ground that retiral dues were not paid with interest to the petitioner despite the said direction of considering the representation of the petitioner. Along-with the reply to the present contempt petition, the respondents have placed on record Annex.R/1, an order dated 09.02.2012, in which computing all the retiral dues including pension, arrears and gratuity, the respondent- Municipal Board, Pipar City, had paid the retiral dues to the petitioner with interest, giving the details of computation so made.

¶27

3. Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jamvant Gurjar, learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submitted that the directions of this Court, which was only for deciding the representation, thus stand complied with.

¶28

4. Mr. Vipul Singhvi appearing for Mr. Rakesh Arora, counsel for the petitioner now contends that interest was paid lesser and more interest ought to have been paid, which according to him comes to Rs.56,000/- and odd.

¶29

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this

¶30

S.B.C.C.P. No.696/2011 in S.B.C.W.P. No.7896/2007 Munna Lal Hans Vs. Tara Chand Meena & Anr.

¶31

Order dt: 03/05/2013

¶32

3/3

¶33

Court is of the opinion that it is sheer abuse of process of contempt jurisdiction of this Court, if the same were to be converted into a money recovery suit like this. It is absolutely misconceived on the part of the petitioner and the learned counsel, with great respects, to contend that the computation of interest was made for lesser amount and more interest was payable. The direction of this Court was merely to consider the representation of the petitioner, which not only stood complied with in true letter and spirit but the respondents have made the entire payment of retiral dues, which was due according to them was due to the petitioner.

¶34

6. The present contempt petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The costs on the petitioner is not imposed taking a lenient view of the matter. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Notices stand discharged. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.

¶35

( DR. VINEET KOTHARI ), J .

¶36

DJ/25

Munna Lal Hans v. Tara Chand Meena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Lal Hans v. Tara Chand Meena and Anr.

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

Devendra Singh and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Smt. Ghisi and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Seth Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Mahadev Panchariya Vs State and Ors.

Munshi Vs Satya Narayan Sharma and Ors.

Deva Meena Vs Vardichand and Ors.