← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18554/2022disposed of

M/S Karwar Enterprises And Others v. Sandeep Kumar And Another

2022-08-08Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Decided on: August 8, 2022.

(1) CRM-M-18554-2022.

M/S KARWAR ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS .. Petitioners

VERSUS

SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER .. Respondents * * * (2) CRM-M-19377-2022.

M/S KARWAR ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS .. Petitioners

VERSUS

SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER .. Respondents * * * (3) CRM-M-19608-2022.

M/S KARWAR ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS .. Petitioners

VERSUS

SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER .. Respondents

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Karanvir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J.

(ORAL) This order will dispose of the above noted three petitions in which a common issue is involved.

Even though notice already stands served upon the respondent, however, respondent No.1 has opted not to participate in the present proceedings.

For convenience of the Court, the factual aspect involved in each of the petitions, is tabulated as under:- Sr. No.

Complaint No.

Amount of compensation Impugned order dated COMA-6280 of 2016 filed on 27.06.2016.

Rs.1,07,000 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) COMA-6278 of 2016 filed on 27.06.2016.

Rs.31,000 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) COMA-6279 of 2016 filed on 27.06.2016.

Rs.55,000 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were granted time to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation in the respective appeals by 14.03.2022 vide order dated 08.03.2022. He further contends that on account of inadvertent miscommunication, the petitioners appeared before the Court on 16.03.2022

instead of 14.03.2022 as directed vide order dated 08.03.2022. The application was, accordingly, moved by the petitioners before the concerned Court to accept 20% of the compensation amount being tendered. However, the aforesaid application was rejected by the Court holding that the amount in question was to be specifically deposited till 14.03.2022 and that as the deposit has been stated to be done after the said specific date, the same cannot be accepted.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners had offered to deposit 20% of the compensation amount involved in each of the respective cases albeit after a delay of 2 days from the date granted by the lower Court, I find that the explanation being offered is worthy of acceptance. He further submits that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount as ordered within a period of 7 days from today. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) in each of the petitions, as tabulated above, is set aside. The aforesaid undertaking given by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners is accepted. It is ordered that in the event of the petitioners depositing 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the lower Court within a period of 7 days from today, the proceedings shall continue from the stage at which they are already pending before the appellate Court. Liberty is, however, granted to respondent No.1 to move appropriate application in case he feels that any irreparable loss or injury has been occasioned on account of the above order.

All the three petitions stand disposed of accordingly. A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected case.

August 8, 2022. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No