Rajasthan High Court
Anil Kumar Kantiwal vs Vabhav Galaria And Ors ... on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:19154]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 454/2007
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5285/2007
Anil Kumar Kantiwal S/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Kantiwal, Aged
about 39 years, Resident of Pachpahad Road, Bhawani Mandi,
District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.Shri Vabhav Galaria, District collector, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
2.Shri Subhash Choudhary, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Jhalawar (Rajasthan)
3.Shri Navratan Mal Gupta, Chairman, Jhalawar Nagrik Sahkari
Bank Ltd., Bhawani Mandi, Tej Bhawan, P.O. Road, Bhawani
Mandi, District Jhalawar.
4.Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Chief Executive Officer,
Jhalawar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., Bhawani Mandi, Tej Bhawan,
P.O. Road, Bhawani Mandi District Jahalwar.
5.Shri Laxmi Narain Ninawat, Sales Officer, Jhalawar Nagrik
Sahakari Bank Limited, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar
(Rajasthan)
----Contemnors/Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh
Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG with
Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
24/08/2023
This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful
disobedience of the interim order dated 01.08.2007 passed by this
Court whereby, while deciding the application filed by the
[2023:RJ-JP:19154] (2 of 3) [CCP-454/2007]
respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, it
was directed that if the petitioner deposits 1/4 th of the total
amount due within a period of one month, the interim order shall
continue. Vide ex-parte interim order dated 20.07.2007, operation
of the order dated 14.05.2007 and sale proclamation notice dated
09.07.2007 was stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite
deposition of the 1/4th of the principal amount due by him within a
period of one month from the date of order dated 01.08.2007, the
respondents proceeded with the auction of the subject property.
He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to
purge the contempt and they may also be punished suitably.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents no.3
to 5 would submit that since the petitioner failed to deposit 1/4 th
of the total due amount in terms of order dated 01.08.2007
despite service of notice by them twice, the interim order stood
vacated and they cannot be guilty of willful disobedience if they
proceeded with the auction of the subject property. Learned
Senior Counsel further submits that in any case, the auction
proceeding could not be finalized and as on date, the petitioner is
in possession of the subject property. He, therefore, prays for
dismissal of the contempt petition.
Heard. Considered.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
since he had deposited 1/4th of the principal amount due, the
respondents were under an obligation not to proceed with the
auction proceeding, is wholly misconceived and does not merit
acceptance.
[2023:RJ-JP:19154] (3 of 3) [CCP-454/2007]
This Court has, vide order dated 01.08.2007, contempt
whereof is alleged, required the petitioner to deposit 1/4 th of the
total amount due within a period of one month and not of the
principal amount. Even otherwise also, after deposition of the 1/4 th
amount by the petitioner as per his interpretation of the interim
order dated 01.08.2007, the respondent-Bank has issued two
notices dated 21.08.2007 (Ex-3, 4 & 5/1) and 25.08.2007 (Ex-3, 4
& 5/2) respectively requiring him to deposit balance amount of the
1/4th of the total amount due; but, admittedly, the petitioner
neither deposited the balance amount nor, responded to these
notices.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not satisfied
that the petitioner has deposited 1/4th amount of the total amount
due within the stipulated period as directed by this Court vide
order dated 01.08.2007. Even otherwise also, even assuming that
the deposition of the 1/4th of the principal amount by the
petitioner represented the deposit of the 1/4th of the total amount
due, if the respondents were under a bona fide belief that the
amount so deposited by the petitioner did not represent the 1/4 th
of the total amount due, especially in absence of any response to
the notices issued by them to the petitioner, they cannot be held
guilty of willful obedience of the direction dated 01.08.2007.
In view thereof, this contempt petition is dismissed.
Notices are discharged.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/156
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
