Mr. Balwant Singh Kainth vs Ms. Upma Chaudhary & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1361 Del

                    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                       Date of Reserve: 8th March, 2010
                                                        Date of Order: 11th March, 2010

CONT. CAS. (C) No. 155/2008
%                                                                            11.03.2010

          Mr. Balwant Singh Kainth                        ... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. J.P.Sirohi, Advocate

                  Versus


          Ms. Upma Chaudhary & Anr.                    ... Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

The petitioner preferred this contempt petition alleging violation of

order dated 5th November, 2008. The operative part of which reads as under:

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to release the interest as ordered by the Tribunal from the date of the resignation not later than 15th December, 2008, failing which the amount shall carry further interest @ 5% per annum.

2. It is not denied that the petitioner had got payment of salary and

wages. However, the grievance of the petitioner was that he was not paid interest in

terms of the order. This Court gave directions to the Registrar General to submit a

report as to whether the entire payment, inclusive of interest, in terms of order had

been made or not. The Registrar General after taking into account the order passed

by the Tribunal as well as order passed by Division Bench of this Court came to the

conclusion that an amount of Rs.14,131.17 was still unpaid. On 8th March, 2010, the

respondent paid this amount to the petitioner in the Court. The petitioner's counsel

argued that the petitioner was entitled to receive compound interest.

3. I consider that the orders as passed by the Tribunal and by the

Division Bench do not talk of compound interest thus, the calculations made by the

Registrar General are as per the orders. No further amount is payable to the

petitioner. This Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed.

March 11, 2010                              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn