Gujarat High Court
Jaimini Hirenbhai Vyas vs Rajaram A. Prajapati (Cancelled By Ex. ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1185/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 1185 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2888 of 2016
==========================================================
JAIMINI HIRENBHAI VYAS
Versus
RAJARAM A. PRAJAPATI (CANCELLED BY EX. 16) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.JAIMINI K PATHAK(6697) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 09/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
By this application, the applicant has prayed for initiating
appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1971") against the opponents
for the willful and deliberate breach of the order dated 10.03.2025
passed by this Court in First Appeal no.2888 of 2016 and judgment
and award dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal (Auxiliary) in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.340 of
2005.
2. Learned party-in-person, has submitted that the learned single
Judge, has allowed the First Appeal no.2888 of 2016 vide order
dated 10.03.2025, holding the applicant entitled to the enhanced
amount of compensation of Rs.77,846/- with 9% interest from the
date of claim petition till realization from the respondent - Insurance
Company. In paragraph 17, the learned Judge has directed the
respondent to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with
interest within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the copy of
the order. Upon such deposit, it has been left open to the original
claimant to approach the concerned Court/Tribunal for appropriate
orders for withdrawal. The Tribunal, has been further required to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1185/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
disburse the enhanced amount through NEFT in favour of the
applicant after due and proper verification.
3. The learned party-in-person has submitted that immediately
after the order was passed, on 20.03.2025, representation was
made to the respondent no.3, requiring it to deposit the remaining
amount within the stipulated time to avoid any legal consequences.
Another representation was made; copy whereof, is placed on
record at page 22, reiterating the request. It is submitted that the
six weeks' got over on 24.04.2025 and despite which, the concerned
respondent, has not deposited the amount. It is submitted that
there is a clear non-compliance of the order passed by the learned
single Judge and hence, the captioned application under the
provisions of the Act of 1971. It is submitted that the applicant has
repeatedly visited the office; however, according to her information,
the amount is not deposited.
4. Heard the learned party-in-person.
5. The judgment, of which non-compliance is alleged, is dated
10.03.2025. As per the judgment, the applicant - learned party-in-
person has been allowed enhanced amount of compensation to the
tune of Rs.77,846/- at the rate of 9%. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the
judgment, read thus:
"16. Appellant-party-in-person claimant is entitled to
enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.77,846/- @ 9%
per annum from the date of claim petition till realization
from respondent Insurance Company.
17. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation with interest as above within a period of
Six Weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. Upon such
deposition, it will be open to the original claimant to approach the
concerned Court/Tribunal for appropriate orders for withdrawal.
Learned Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount through
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1185/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
NEFT in favour of original claimant Party-in-person after due
identification and verification."
6. The applicant, has raised the grievance that the judgment,
has not been complied with despite the six weeks' got over. Since
the averments were missing in the application about the applicant -
learned party-in-person approaching the concerned office, this
Court, requested the learned party-in-person to indicate the details
as to how and when she has approached the office or not?
According to her, she has already made her submissions orally and
that would be sufficient and no further affidavit or averments are
necessitated. This Court, with a view to offering her a chance,
requested to provide the details; in response whereof, the applicant
- learned party-in-person stated that she had already made her
submission and the Court asking again and again, will not change
her stand. The learned party-in-person reiterated that no affidavit or
any averments are necessary, leaving it to the Court to pass the
order.
7. Notably, as per the direction in paragraph 17, observation has
been made, leaving it open to the applicant to approach the
concerned Court/Tribunal for appropriate orders for withdrawal of
the amount. Pertinently, the applicant - learned party-in-person has
alleged non-compliance of the order and when, such allegations are
made, it is the duty of the applicant to state precisely each and
every statements indicating the steps taken as well as alleged
inaction or non-compliance. The applicant, except referring to the
representations has not stated any further details as to whether she
has approached the Court/Tribunal for withdrawal of the amount. In
absence of any details or lack of clarity, it would not be appropriate
for this Court to consider the application in the present form.
Moreover, by the present application, the applicant - learned party-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1185/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
in-person, is seeking enforcement of the direction contained in the
judgment dated 10.03.2025. If at all the applicant - learned party-in-
person wants execution of the order, the remedy available is to
approach the Tribunal and in view of section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal, on an application made to it by the
person entitled, can issue the certificate for the amount to the
Collector and the Collector, shall proceed to recover the same as if it
was an arrears of land revenue.
8. Apt would be the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this
Court in the case of Renumal V. Bijani vs. Bantwa Municipal Borough
reported in 2002 (3) GLH 570 wherein it is held and observed that
the contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for executory
jurisdiction vested in appropriate forum. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
judgment read thus:-
"8. It cannot be gainsaid that the order dated 3-12-1997
is an order passed in petitions under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, and is executable under rule 190, read with
Rule 191 of The Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, hereinafter
called "the Rules". Rule 190 of the Rules provides that any
order in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution may
on an application in that behalf subject to the provision of
Sec. 82 of Civil Procedure Code be transferred under Sec.
39 of the Code of Civil Procedure to any Civil Court for
execution. Rule 191 of the Rules envisages the
transmission of the application for execution of the order or
decree on original side for execution to a Civil Court after
complying with the preperquisites contained in the
aforesaid Rule. In this context, it is apposite to notice that
under Rule 194 of the Rules an order made by the High
Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution also is executable
in the same manner in which the order made by the Court
or Tribunal against which the application under Art. 227 has
been made could have been executed under law. Thus, a
complete code of mechanism for execution,
implementation and enforcement of the orders passed
under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been
provided by the Rules, and the beneficiary of the order may
avail and invoke the remedy ex debito justitiae.
9. Thus, for enforcement of the directions contained in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1185/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
the order dated 3-12-1997, the applicants have a clear
remedy by way of execution by the appropriate Court. It is
well settled that the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is
not a substitute for executory jurisdiction vested in
appropriate forum. The Court is of the view that the
applicants, if so advised, may execute the order of this
Court dated 3-12-1997 in the manner prescribed
hereinabove. The prayer for initiation of contempt
proceedings for noncompliance of the order of this Court
dated 3-12-1997 is ill-advised. It is to be remembered that
contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged
contemner. The applicant cannot invoke the contempt
jurisdiction as a matter of right. The status of the applicant
is only that of an informant."
9. In view of the above, the instant case is not a fit case for
initiation of any proceedings under the Act of 1971 against the
alleged contemners and it will be open, if so advised to the
applicant - learned party-in-person, to execute the order of this
Court in the manner prescribed.
10. Hence, the application, does not deserve to be entertained
and is hereby, rejected. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
BINOY B PILLAI
