INTHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR fc.G.y CONTEMPT PFnmON N0. '2-j ^- OF 2007 ,%-. PETmONER ^Ramlal Son^of Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Soni, aged about 66 years, Resldent of Rohit Kirana Store, College Road, Brahmanpara, ^33.<3J-^. . *'uncy& lw'u'_ ^ ^ Rajnandgaon, Distrlct Rajnandgaon ...^^f^-^^"- (C.G.). RESPONDENT VERSUS ^. K. Behar, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (C.I.D.C.), Shastri Chowk, Gole Bazar Thana, Raipur (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETmON UNDERSECTION12 OFTHE CONTEMPTOF THE COURTS ACT. READ WITH ARTICLE^IS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /" ^s-s»- ../" --.^•' w ^ .—a^ .—.-.J HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SingleBench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava.J. Contempt Petition N0.214 of 2007 Petitioner Respondent Ramlal Versus S. K.Behar J- (; vS" (ContemptPetition under Section 12 ofthe Contempt ofthe Courts Act read with Article 215oftheConstitution oflndia) Present: - Shri Abhishek Sharma, courisel forthe petitioner. Shri G. D. Vaswani, counsel for respondent. ORALORDER (Passedon 01-03-2011) This CQntempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of orderdated 19-04-2007 passed ,n Writ Petition (S) No.1595 of 2007(AnnexureA-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioher submitted that vide order dated 19-04- 2007, the respondent Nb.1 therein was directed to make payment ofinterest @ 6% per annum in accordance with Sub section 3-A of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972,within a period offourweeksfrom the date of receipt of copy ofthisorder. Though, the respondent has paid some amoynt, the full amount as percalculatiorTofthepetitioner has not been paidtill date. hle further submits that the petitioner had broyght to the notice of the respondent by submitting 9 copy of the order passed-.by this Court on 30-04-2007 whereas the payment wasmade on 12-12-2007 and that too under protest. He submits that ih this manner, the respondent did not comply with the order of this Court in its true spirit. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent subroitted that the order passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the respondent by the '\; ,'v-. ..L. r < »...^,-.-»,.^-s... petition by suppressing the material facts and therefore, an application for recall of order dated 19-04-2007 was filed which was registered as M.C.C. (P.R.) No.2352 of 2007, but that M.C.C. was not decided. It was found that the disposal of M.C.C. may take some time, on 12-12-2007, an amount of Rs.14,823/-, which according to the respondent, is payable to the petitioner @ 6% per annum, was paid by cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Raipur, bearing No.991640. He further submits that payment was made "under protest" only to protect the interest of respondent as M.C.C. had already been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the M.C.C. was filed seeking to recall the order dated 19-04-2007, the said M.C.C. was finally dismissed on 29-10-2007 for want of prosecution. 5. From the submission and pleadings of the parties, it is found that the respondents have paid the amount of Rs.14,823/-, which according to them, is payable to the petitioner under the law. There is dispute with regard to total amount, which is payable to the petitioner as also the interest. The petitioner submits that according to him, total amount payable to him would be Rs.22,234/-. Therefore, there appears to be a dispute with regard to exact amountpayable. Though, this Court directed interest to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the delay in making such payment *=;••-' ' ,was on the ground that since the review petition was filed, but finally the amount was paid as per,calculation of the responde.nt. That submission has not been disputed. Though, there is some delay in maKmg payment in view of the fact that the respondent had filed an application for recall of order dated 19-04-2007 and that ttie amount was finally paid, in the opinion pf this Court, it does not appear to be a case of willful disobedience. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount ^'. !r -3. which has been paid to him and has claimed that higher amclyntjs-^ayable, he would be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to him under the law. 6. Before parting with the case, this Court would observe that the respondent ought to be more vigilant and careful while acting and taking decision in compliance of the Court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application for recall of the Court order dated 19-04-2007 was dismissed for wanf of prosecution on 29-10-2007. It is not on record as to when the respondent •^ came to know about such dismissal, because ih the affidavit, it has been stated before the Court that the amount was paid during the pendency of the application for recall. Respondent therefore ought to have been more vigilant and careful towards compliance of the Courtorder and all attempts ought to have been made * • to comply the same within the stipulated period. However, for the reasons stated hereinabove, rule is discharged. 7. Accordingly, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge