Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Apana Nayak vs Suresh Mishra on 22 January, 2015

Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya

Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya

                                              1



22.01.2015
   ac
                                        W. P. No. 17016(W) of 2013


                                               Apana Nayak
                                                  ... Petitioner/Applicant
                                                 -versus-
                                              Suresh Mishra
                                                  ... Alleged Contemnor


                         Mr. Partha Sarkar.
                                     ... For the Petitioner/Applicant.

                         Mr. Ranjit Jaiswal.
                                      ... For the Alleged Contemnor.


                         Re : C.P.A.N. 1900 of 2013.

                         Pursuant to the direction passed by this Court on
             16th January, 2015; the contemnor is personally present in
             Court today.     He is represented by his lawyer, Mr. Ranjit
             Jaiswal, who informs this Court that interest on arrear payment
             has been paid to the writ petitioner by an account payee cheque.

                         Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner
             submits on instruction from his client who is also present in
             Court today that he has received an account payee cheque for a
             sum of Rs.1,29,066/- on account of interest on arrear pension.
             He also informs this Court that the arrear pension was received
             by his client earlier.   He, further, informs this Court that the
             cheque which was given to his client for payment of interest on
             arrear pension has been deposited by him in his account, but
             his client is yet to ascertain as to whether the said cheque has
             been enchased or not.

                         Having regard to the fact that the entire payment
             which the respondent authority was required to pay in terms of

the order passed by this Court on 8th July, 2013 in W.P. No. 17016(W) of 2013 has been paid by the municipal authority though belatedly, the contempt proceeding is dropped without awarding any punishment as the contemnor tenders his unqualified apology to this Court for not complying with the 2 order of this Court in time and assures this Court that henceforth the contemnor will be careful in complying with the order of this Court promptly.

The contempt proceeding is, thus, dropped.

The contemnor is not required to be present in Court any further in connection with this proceeding.

(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.)