Umesh Kumar and Anr. v. Raj Roadways Seva Nivarat Karamchari
Case brief
What is this about?
The Special Bench quashed a Single Judge's observation in an interim contempt order that treated a pension judgment as in rem. It held that contempt proceedings cannot alter rights or declare judgments in rem, overruling the observation without affecting pending litigation.
What did the court decide?
The observation holding the Single Bench judgment to be in rem is set aside; pending contempt petition remains unaffected.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Civil No. 11/2018
- Umesh Kumar, I.A.S. Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
- Kuldeep Ranka, I.A.S., Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajasthan Roadways Seva Nivarat Karamchari Kalyan Samiti, 202 Ram Nagar Shopping Centre, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, through its President Mr. Tara Chand Jain son of Shri Mool Chand Jain, aged about 70 years, resident of 798, Ram Nagar, Jaipur302015.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinayak Kumar Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur Mr. Amit Kumar Dhawan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a finding or observation treating a judgment in rem can be made in contempt proceedings.
Whether the Single Bench's observation regarding the judgment being in rem is legally sustainable.
Whether interfering with the order affects the pending contempt petition or subsequent litigation.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Umesh Kumar, Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
- appellant
Kuldeep Ranka, Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
- respondent
Rajasthan Roadways Seva Nivarat Karamchari Kalyan Samiti
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAC/11/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court