Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vimal Kumar Sharma vs Shri Bimal Julka(Ias)(Secretary) on 15 March, 2016

         CONC 767/2014



                                                  1

         Vimal Kumar Sharma and another
                        Vs.
              Bimal Julka and others
15/03/2016
       Shri Deepak Singhal, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
       Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the
respondents.

Respondents' counsel, by referring the papers filed as Annexures C/1 and C/2 alongwith the index in the Registry on 03.09.2015 alongwith reply dated 04.09.2015 filed as document No.3211/2015 submits that as per averments of such reply and the annexed orders dt.24.02.2015 (Annexures C/1 and C/2), the impugned order under contempt has been substantially complied with by the authorities, hence, this contempt petition does not require any further consideration and deserves to be disposed of and if any dispute of the petitioner is still in existence, then in view of such new cause of action, the petitioner is required to approach before appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding under the appropriate provision.

The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the petitioner's counsel saying that while complying the order under contempt the entire benefits have not been extended to the petitioner, therefore, this contempt petition requires further consideration to initiate the contempt proceeding against the authorities of the respondents.

CONC 767/2014 2

Having perused the aforesaid reply of the respondents as well as the orders Annexures C/1 and C/2, it is apparent that the order under contempt has been substantially complied with by the authorities and after passing the aforesaid orders Annexures C/1 and C/2 by the authorities, the petitioner has got new cause of action if any dispute is still in existence inspite of aforesaid compliance order.

Consequently, this contempt petition does not require any further consideration on the merits, hence, the same is disposed of extending a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding under appropriate provision permissible under the law with respect of the dispute, which is still in existence. There shall be no order as to the costs.



     (U.C.Maheshwari)               (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
          Judge                            Judge
SP