High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/2259/2017disposed of

Jaspal Singh And Another v. Nirmaljit Singh Kalsi And Others

2019-01-15Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur2 pages

COCP-2259-2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2259-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 15, 2019 Jaspal Singh and another .....Petitioners

Versus

Dr.Nirmaljit Singh Kalsi and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Present:

Mr.Kamaldeep S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Sewak, Addl.A.G.,Punjab.

Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sarvesh Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. ........

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) The contempt petition is filed for non-compliance of the order dated 02.06.2016 vide which a direction was issued to decide whether the petitioners are entitled to claim benefit of the judgment rendered in CWP No.20771 of 2013 (Harbans Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others) decided on 01.04.2014.

Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the order has been complied with and in compliance of the said decision, orders dated 09.11.2017 have been placed on record as Annexures R/4-1 and R/4-2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that a perusal of both the orders show that petitioners are found to be covered with the aforesaid judgment but consequences of the said benefit, i.e. settlement of accounts, has not been done till date. It is further stated that petitioner MEENU 2019.01.17 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

COCP-2259-2017 (O&M) -2No.1 is required to pay the amount to the tune of `2,44,757/- in view of the price so fixed, which he is ready to do so, for which the respondents have to issue a demand notice. With respect to the second petitioner, the amount to the tune of `2,72,009/- has to be refunded, which has not been done. In view of the above, the contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take the orders dated 09.11.2017 to their logical conclusions by doing the needful within four weeks from today. The rule issued against the respondent(s) stands discharged. January 15, 2019 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2019.01.17 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh