Delhi High Court
Competition Review (P) Ltd. vs Employees State Insurance ... on 2 April, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont. Cas. (C) NO.1429/2006 in WP(C) No.12205/2006
% Dated of Decision: 02.04.2009
COMPETITION REVIEW (P) LTD. .... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vimal Bagarniya for Mr. Vinay
Sabharwal, Advocate
Versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE .... Respondents
CORPORATION & ORS.
Through Mr. P.I. Jose and Mr. Vivek Kandari,
Advocates for respondent No.1.
Mr. Feroze, Advocate for respondent
No.2.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? NO
V. K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition
against the respondents under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt
of Court Act, 1971 for having willfully and deliberately violated the
order dated 2nd August, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 12205/2006.
2. By virtue of the order dated 2nd August, 2006 a show cause
notice was issued in the aforesaid writ and in the meantime the
recovery of the amount was stayed from the petitioner. The case
of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that the stay of interim
order against the recovery notice was duly served on the
respondents but despite the service the respondents willfully
disobeyed the stay order passed by issuing a recovery notice on 1st
November, 2006 and hence the present petition.
3. The petitioner in proof of service of the said interim order
has placed on record, the original photocopy of the receipt of the
speed post and the original AD card addressed to the respondents
which shows that the order dated 2nd August, 2006 was received
by the officer to the respondents on 29th September, 2006 and yet
a recovery notice dated 1st November, 2006 was issued and thus,
the respondent have committed the contempt under Section 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
4. The counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit
and has made a specific averment that the order dated 2nd August,
2006 came to their notice only on 13th November, 2006 while as
the recovery notice was issued on 1st November, 2006. In any
case, it has been stated by the respondents in the counter
affidavit that there was no intention on the part of the
respondents to willfully or contumaciously disobey the orders of
the Court. This is on account of the fact that the recovery notice
dated 01.11.2006 received on 13.11.2006 has been withdrawn on
16th November, 2006. The withdrawal of recovery notice has been
placed on record by the respondents along with the counter
affidavit.
5. In view of the fact that the recovery notice stands already
withdrawn by the respondents which is claimed to have been
issued in inadvertently on account of the non service of the stay
order, the present contempt does not survive. I, accordingly,
discharge the contempt notice and dismiss the contempt petition.
APRIL 02, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
KP
