Dismissed

Prakash Gaur v. Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2014WCP/8/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ contempt petition regarding delayed compliance of orders. It noted respondents had issued a substantial on-account payment to the petitioner's mother (wife of deceased employee), found the proceedings bona fide, and terminated the matter with liberty for future grievances.

What did the court decide?

Termination of contempt proceedings with liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate remedies for any remaining grievances.

Prakash Gaur Vs Deepak Upreti and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

D.B. WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8/2014. Prakash Gaur Vs. Deepak Upreti & Ors. // 1 //

¶2

122

¶3

D.B. WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8/2014.

¶4

Prakash Gaur Vs. Deepak Upreti & Ors.

¶5

Date of Order :: 14^th February 2014.

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Harish Purohit ] Mr. Akshat Verma ], for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Sunil Joshi, Assistant to the AAG.

¶8

<><><>

¶9

BY THE COURT :

¶10

It was submitted on behalf of the non-petitioners in this contempt matter that the carrying out of all the requirements of the orders passed in the writ petition and the intra-court appeal was taking some time because of want of complete record but the nonpetitioners were actively in the process and would finalise the matter as early as possible. Upon this Court having expressed reservations that the order was passed by the learned Single Judge way back on 25.01.2011 and its compliance was, in any case, to be made within three months from the date of dismissal of the intra-court appeal, i.e., 20.02.2013; and consumption of extra time could not be countenanced, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for some time to complete his instructions.

¶11

Now, it is submitted that the non-petitioners have issued an order on 13.02.2014 sanctioning on-account payment to the wife of

¶12

D.B. WRIT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8/2014. Prakash Gaur Vs. Deepak Upreti & Ors. // 2 //

¶13

the deceased employee, the mother of the present petitioner. It is submitted today that a cheque bearing number 482560 in the sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs has been issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Pratapgarh in the name of the wife of the deceased employee and the same has been handed over to her. It is, of course, submitted that this amount is an on-account advance payment and would be liable to be adjusted against the actual amount payable to the heirs of the deceased employee.

¶14

The propositions appear reasonable; and we feel that the nonpetitioners are bona fide proceeding with the matter and have also seen reasons and have rightly made substantial on-account payment so as to mitigate against the hardships of the family of the deceased employee.

¶15

Taking note of the steps taken and expecting that the necessary process shall be completed by the non-petitioners without much delay, it appears appropriate to terminate the proceedings herein.

¶16

Subject to the observations foregoing, this contempt petition is dismissed but with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law, in case of any grievance remaining yet or arising in future.

¶17

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

¶18

/Mohan/

Prakash Gaur v. Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Gaur v. Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Binjraj Ji Dhalla Soni Vs State and Ors.

Than Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Nena Ram and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Varshiya Sadhu M J Sangh Vs Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur

Ajay Singh Vs State and Anr.

Hanuman Ram Vs State of Raj. and Ors.