Delhi High Court
Mantec Consultants Pvt Ltd vs Ajay Narayan Jha & Ors on 25 October, 2016
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.10.2016
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1085/2016
MANTEC CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
AJAY NARAYAN JHA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : : Mr. Suneet Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr.
Shivam Chanana and Ms. Manisha
Saroha, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
25.10.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.35530/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CONT.CAS(C) 1085/2016
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful disobedience of
order dated 05.09.2016.
2. By order dated 05.09.2016, this Court had stayed the operation of
order dated 23.08.2016, whereby, the petitioner had been debarred. This
Court had further directed removal of the order dated 23.08.2016 from
the website.
3. It is contended that the respondents did not remove the order from
the website, on account of which, the petitioner had to approach this
Court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
have removed the order dated 23.08.2016 from their website after the
service of the advance copy of the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance
notice, submits that the respondents had sought an opinion from the Law
Ministry as well as the Law Officer with regard to possibility of filing of
an appeal against the order dated 05.09.2016 and/or also with regard to
the compliance of directions contained therein.
6. It is contended that as soon as the opinion was received, the
respondents had removed the order dated 23.08.2016 from their website.
It is contended that filing of the present petition was not instrumental in
removal of the order. But, it was done by the respondents pursuant to the
legal advice received.
7. It is contended that there is no contumacious conduct on the part of
the respondents in not complying the order dated 05.09.2016, passed by
this Court. However, certain time elapsed on account of the fact that the
respondents had sought legal advice contemplating taking legal recourse
against order dated 05.09.2016.
8. Though, in my view, the respondents should have acted with
promptitude, however, the time that had elapsed is not such that one can
say that there is contumacious wilful delay on the part of the respondents
in not complying with the order dated 05.09.2016.
9. The respondents were entitled to take legal recourse against an
order and to seek legal advice. I am of the view that there is no
contumacious wilful delay on the part of the respondents in not
complying with the order dated 05.09.2016.
10. I am not inclined to initiate any proceedings, exercising power
under the Contempt of Court Act against the respondents.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 25, 2016
st
