Bhel Employees Provident Fund ... vs Smt. Brinda Swaroop Principal ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 277 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 2744 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Bhel Employees Provident Fund Trust. Hardwar Thru Secy.,
 
Respondent :- Smt. Brinda Swaroop Principal Secy. Finance Deptt.,And Anr.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Shishir Jain
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.

Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wrongly he has made Sri Jagdish Rai, Managing Director, U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited (UPCSMFL), 1-C, New Azad Nagar, Indira Nagar Road, Kalyanpur, Kanpur as the opposite party No. 2 by showing him as Director, U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited.

He further submits that Sri Jagdish Rai against whom the bailable warrant  was issued, in fact, has nothing to do with this case.  He expressed his regret and tendered an unconditional apology for the mistake. 

On the other hand, Sri  Jaideep Mathur, learned counsel for Sri Jagdish Rai submits that his client has been disturbed by receiving the bailable warrant for an offence which he has not committed at all.

After hearing both the parties, it appears that the mistake is not bonafide.  Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shishir Jain has wrongly made Sri Jagdish Rai  (O.P. No. 2) as the necessary party and it caused unnecessary harassment, humiliation, and defamation to Sri Jagdish Rai.

At this stage, Sri Shishir Jain, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the instruction of his client, O.P. No. 2 was made a party in the  petition.  Personally, he has nothing to do.

In these circumstances, I modify my order dated 04.04.2012 and cancel the bailable warrant issued against the O.P. No. 2 (Jagdish Rai).  For the mistake on the part of the  petitioner, I award a Token compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) which will be paid by  the petitioner to Sri Jagdish Rai (O.P. No. 2) within a period of one week.  It will be the duty of the petitioner's counsel personally to see the payment of the token cost.  If not so, the cost shall be recovered as land revenue.

Order Date :- 13.4.2012/Nitesh