Pritam Singh v. Ved Parkash Taneja & ORS

CM-7509-CII-2019 in/and COCP-2037-2016 -1117+209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CM-7509-CII-2019 in/and COCP-2037-2016 Date of Decision: April 02, 2019 Pritam Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

Ved Parkash Taneja and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Present:

Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6. ........

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) CM-7509-CII-2019 Additional affidavit and resolution dated 16.08.2018 are taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

COCP-2037-2016 The contempt is filed for non-compliance of the order dated 04.11.2015 vide which a direction was issued to the competent authority to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. No doubt the speaking order had been passed at the time of filing of the contempt petition but while issuing notice, the learned Single Judge noted that although claim of the petitioner was allowed but the amount due to the petitioner has not been paid. Reply has been filed. The amount paid to the petitioner has been mentioned in para No.3 of the said reply. Learned counsel for the MEENU 2019.04.04 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CM-7509-CII-2019 in/and COCP-2037-2016 -2petitioner, however, states that the same is not the entire payment and some amount is still due. The said fact has been dealt with by the respondents in their speaking order as also in their additional affidavit placed on record as Annexure R-2/5 stating therein that the payment till now paid to the petitioner has been calculated as per the last drawn pay. The remaining record is not available with them and that the same was with the petitioner himself being custodian of the record.

Be that as it may, the only direction of this Court was to decide the legal notice which has been done vide order dated 24.02.2016. In this view of the matter, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. The same is, accordingly dismissed. Rule issued against the respondent stands discharged. However, in case the petitioner is still dis-satisfied with any part of the said order or there is any discrepancy in the payment or the same is not as per his claim, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

April 02, 2019 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2019.04.04 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh