Lala Chaudhary vs Vijay Kelkar And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 577 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

C.M. No. 44 of 2002 in C. C. P. No. 272 of 2000 :

1. In this application, the petitioner had prayed for directions for allowing him inspection of certain documents and the records with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already inspected the records and as such, this application is not pressed.

2. The application stands disposed of.

C. C. P. No. 272 of 2000:

3. This contempt petition has been initiated against the respondents on the basis of an order passed by a Division Bench of this court on September 9, 1999, in C. W. P. No. 1850 of 1999 wherein directions were issued to the respondents to see that the matter is finalised expeditiously and the entire reward money, as per the rules of the Department, is paid to him without any further delay.

4. In para. 2 of his application, the petitioner has alleged that the said orders have been violated inasmuch as the reward money in respect of the raids has not been disbursed to him. In the affidavit filed by the respondents it is pointed out that out of the raids in question, only two appeals filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, have been disposed of and in respect thereof, the reward money of Rs. 24,000 has already been paid to the petitioner. Regarding others, the plea of the respondents is that the appeals are still pending and the reward money will be paid only after the appeals are finalised. In view of the directions contained in the order dated September 9, 1999, passed by a Division Bench of this court, the respondents are under an obligation to pay the reward money only as per rules and as such, the respondents appear to be justified in making payment of only that part of reward money which has actually become due to the petitioner. In case the petitioner feels that the reward money is not adequate or that he is entitled to reward money even in other cases before the finalisation of the appeals as per rules, he may file an appropriate writ petition against the respondents seeking relief. Prima facie, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out. No notice, therefore, needs to be issued under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

5. The petition stands dismissed.

C. Ms. Nos. 137, 203, 703 and 378 of 2001 :

6. Dismissed as infructuous.