Shashi Prabha Shukla vs Abhijeet Kumar Ojha, Branch ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8621 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 704 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Shashi Prabha Shukla
 
Opposite Party :- Abhijeet Kumar Ojha, Branch Manager / Branch Head, Indian Bank, Agriculture Directorate Branch, Lko
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr.Pooja Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the writ Court vide order dated 01.09.2022 has recorded a concession on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the liability of the petitioner deserves to be finalized with amount realized through the sale of vehicle and No Objection Certificate would be provided to the petitioner on her appearance before the Branch Manager of the Bank. The writ petition was disposed of expecting the petitioner to appear before the Branch Manager along with the representation and the said representation was to be considered and decided sympathetically and No Objection Certificate was also required to be provided to the petitioner within ten days.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither No Objection Certificate has been provided nor the loan account has been finalized rather the Bank through its order dated 22.09.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the contempt petition, is asking for certain sum of money towards one time settlement.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 22.09.2022 is in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court inasmuch as No Objection Certificate has still not been provided to the petitioner and the Bank cannot ask for any further sum of money.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner though attractive on the face of it merits outright rejection inasmuch as the writ Court after recording the concession on the part of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank had required the petitioner to submit a representation which was required to be decided. Admittedly, the Bank has decided the representation of the petitioner through order dated 22.09.2022 whereby the Bank is requiring certain money towards one time settlement. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deliberate and wilful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by the writ Court. Consequently, no case for contempt of the Court is made out. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.

However, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.09.2022 before appropriate Court in appropriate proceedings, if she is so aggrieved.

Order Date :- 23.3.2023

A. Katiyar