COCP No.2138 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2138 of 2009 Date of decision: 8.12.2009 Court on its own motion ......Petitioner(s) Versus NSRC Prasad ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Contempt proceedings in this case were initiated by this Court suo moto vide order dated 30.11.2009 passed in FAO No.3782 of 2008 keeping in view the contemptuous behaviour of the respondent as he failed to be present before this Court on 30.11.2009 and further to explain the conduct of the Insurance Company filing the aforesaid FAO No.3782 of 2008 on false plea. Today, respondent-Contemner Sh. NSRC Prasad, Chairman- cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Company Limited is present in Court and duly assisted by Sh. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate. Reply by way of affidavit filed on his behalf in Court is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent at the outset has very fairly stated that there is no defence with the respondent for his non-appearance before this Court on 30.11.2009 and therefore, he tenders his unconditional apology and throws himself at the mercy of this Court. Learned counsel has further assured that the aforesaid respondent COCP No.2138 of 2009 2 shall be present before this Court as and when required. The respondent has further assured this court that corrective/remedial measures will be taken to see that such errors/mistakes as have been committed in this case may not occur again and while filing the appeal on behalf of the company every endeavour shall be made and it will be ensured that averments made in the appeal are not contrary to the record. The respondent has also regretted the language used by Shri Swaran Singh Rattol, Advocate, counsel of the appellant-insurance company representing the case before the Tribunal, in his affidavit which was not admittedly accurate. The respondent in his affidavit has also undertaken to instruct all its Officers as also lawyers to see that such error/mistake is not repeated. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit is reproduced, as under:- “The above sequence of events give rise to bonafide inference that the application though factually not allowed but was in fact treated to have been allowed. The deponent sincerely regrets the language used by the counsel for the Insurance Company before MACT in his affidavit which was not accurate. That the deponent further undertakes to instruct all its officers as also lawyers to see that such error/mistake is not repeated. The deponent further submits and undertakes to instruct the concerned staff that in future while filing the appeals/submissions in the Courts, they should ensure that the averments, which are contrary to records, are not made and that in this regard they should be more careful and discrete in future.” Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondent and the fact COCP No.2138 of 2009 3 that the respondent has submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. December 8, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE