1. Contempt petition — Non-compliance with court order — Payment of compensation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1107
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
C.P. No. 317 of 1997 in LA. No. 36 In W.P. (C) 4677/85
Decided On: 23.09. I 999
K.L. Arora Appellants
versus
S.S. Prasad and Anr. Respondent
Important Points
Non-payment due to pendency of departmental proceeding not considered as deliberate violation of court orders
Subject
Civil Law - Contempt of Court
Headnote
Contempt - Non-payment of compensation - Pendency of departmental proceeding
Fact of the Case:
Contempt Petition filed for non-compliance with court order directing payment of compensation
Finding of the Court:
Court dismissed the Contempt Petition due to the pendency of a departmental proceeding, indicating that the non-payment was not a deliberate violation of the Court's orders
Issues: Allegation of non-compliance with court order for compensation payment
Ratio Decidendi: Non-payment not due to deliberate violation but pendency of departmental proceeding
Final Decision: Contempt Petition dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Non-payment of compensation is justified due to the pendency of departmental proceedings regarding misappropriation of funds. (Para 1 )
3. Non-payment of dues due to pending departmental proceedings does not constitute a deliberate violation of court orders. (Para 1 )
4. Absence of deliberate violation in non-payment of dues due to pending departmental proceedings precludes the initiation of contempt proceedings. (Para 1 )
5. Contempt petition dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Whether non-payment of court-ordered compensation due to pending departmental proceedings constitutes contempt of court?
No, if the non-payment is a result of the pendency of departmental proceedings and not a deliberate violation of the court's order, there is no justification for initiating contempt proceedings. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed on the allegation that the order of this Court dated
4.] 2.1996, directing payment of compensation has not been complied with. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, a showcause has been filed clearly indicating therein that the applicant is facing a departmental proceeding on the allegation of misappropriation of huge funds of the Company and until and unless that departmental proceeding is concluded, question of making any payment pursuant to the order of this Court would not arise. In view of the stand taken by the Management in the show cause filed, we see no justification for initiating a contempt proceeding, as in our view the non-payment of the alleged due is not on account of any deliberate violation of the Courts orders, but on account of the pendency of a departmental proceeding.
2. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.
