Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jagdish Chandra
2002 Latest Caselaw 260 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. Heard the parties.

The following impugned order was passed by this Court in Civil Writ No. 5763/98 & CM 11010/98 on 13th January, 1999.

"In the meanwhile, the operation of the recovery certificate dated 1.12.1998 is stayed on the condition that before the next date of hearing, the petitioner may deposit the said amount in this Court."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the stay order, the respondent has collected the cheque of Rs. 2,12,507/- in violation of order dated 13th January, 1999 and before the dated fixed, i.e. 26th July, 1999. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated 13th January, 1999 could not become operative on account of the fact that the "condition" that the before the next date of hearing, the petitioner may deposit the said amount in this Court was not complied with.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount has not been deposited in this Court. Instead, the amount was deposited before the Recovery Officer.

4. There is no doubt that that Counsel for respondent, Mr. Ajit Singh, was present when this order was passed. Though technically speaking, the petitioner have committed this technical error by depositing the amount with the Recovery Officer and not in this Court. The respondent has also taken technical advantage of that situation for technically speaking, the order dated 13th January, 1999 was not complied by depositing the amount "in this Court". In such circumstances, I feel that the petition for contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act is not maintainable.

5. With these observations, the petition stands disposed off.