Dismissed

Adarsh Saraswati Mahaila Shiksha v. Shri Naveen Jain and Others

Rajasthan HC3 May 2016CCP/504/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging willful disobedience due to non-compliance with a court order. The Court found that the original agreement produced by the respondent was dated prior to the petition, negating the claim of forgery and finding no willful disobedience, leading to dismissal of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Adarsh Saraswati Mahaila Shiksha Vs Shri Naveen Jain and… — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur

¶3

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.504 of 2015

¶4

Adarsh Saraswati Mahila Shiksha Avam Gramin Vikas Samiti VERSUS

¶5

Shri Naveen Jain and another

¶6

Date of Order ::: 03.05.2016

¶7

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

¶8

Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Gupta, A.A.G., for the respondents

¶9

¶10

In the instant contempt petition preferred under

¶11

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, a grievance has been made by the petitioner that the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by ld. Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ petition No.4285/2015 has not been complied with. Hence, respondents be punished for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

¶12

Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General

¶13

appearing for the respondents, has submitted that before exparte order dated 08.04.2015 was passed, the respondents had already entered into an agreement/ memorandum of understanding with one Piramal Swasthya Management & Research Institute.

¶14

On the last date of hearing, Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had submitted that the agreement/ memorandum of understanding

¶15

¶16

dated 27.03.2015 is forged document as the stamp papers of the same were purchased on 25.04.2015 i.e. after passing of the order of this Court.

¶17

This Court on 25.04.2016 had directed Mr. S.K. Gupta, ld. A.A.G. to produce original copy of the agreement dated 27.03.2015.

¶18

In pursuance of the said order dated 25.04.2016, Mr.

¶19

S.K. Gupta, ld. A.A.G., has produced original agreement/ memorandum of understanding dated 27.03.2015. The back page of the same reveals that the said document was produced on 25.07.2015.

¶20

Having perused the original agreement/ memorandum of understanding, I am of the view that the document relied upon by the petitioner cannot be termed as true copy of the original document. Even though, document produced by the petitioner is attested by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sawaimadhopur, respondent No.2, herein, it cannot be said that the attestation bears true copy of the original and, therefore, this Court will tend to rely upon original document, than upon certified copy of the same. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court.

¶21

At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has prayed that the respondents may be directed to

¶22

¶23

handover copy of the original to the petitioner and furthermore, this Court should order investigation.

¶24

This Court has to prima-facie satisfy itself, whether the respondents are in willful disobedience of the order of this Court or not. It is an intention and willful part for which the Court will be considered to take the respondents to task. This Court in contempt petition can neither hold investigation nor roving enquiry. Since this Court is satisfied that the respondents have not willfully disobeyed the order of this Court, no further directions are called for and the present petition is dismissed.

¶25

[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] J.

¶26

ashok/

Adarsh Saraswati Mahaila Shiksha v. Shri Naveen Jain and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Adarsh Saraswati Mahaila Shiksha v. Shri Naveen Jain and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Sharma Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Anr.

Man Chand Jain Vs Managing Committee S S Jain Anr.

Dr Yadram Yadav Vs Shri Mukesh Sharma

Rajkumar Agrawal Vs the Appe Rent Tribunal Jaipur

Bharat Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Nitish Kumar Gopala Vs R S R T C and Ors.