Back
Supreme Court of India
Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.K. THAKKER, R.V. RAVEENDRAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.
National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Ltd.
Versus
Bhim Sen Gupta & Others
Contempt Petition (C) No. 75 of 2005 In Transferred Case (C) No. 14 of 1987
Decided On : 03-02-2006
Judgment :
We have heard learned Solicitor General for the petitioner and Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the contemnors.
We are constrained to observe that the petition seeking contempt action being taken against the respondents is highly misconceived. The petitioner has withheld and suppressed material facts from the Court in the form of various proceedings that were undertaken after the judgment was pronounced by this Court on 12th February, 1988 in M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1988 (1) SCALE 273). The petitioner did not even state in the contempt petition that in the main matter a miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.26004/1988) dated 26th August, 1988 was filed seeking possession of Bungalow No.2 of Swadeshi House. That application was dismissed in terms of the order dated 3rd August, 1989 observing that it would not prejudice the rights of the parties to move an appropriate court in accordance with law. It also seems now that after the said order was passed, civil as well as criminal proceedings were taken in respect of Bungalow No.2, Swadeshi House.
The matters have been adjudicated by various courts. None of it has been disclosed by the petitioner in the contempt petition which led to issue of notice by this Court in terms of the order dated 22nd July, 2005. We are not at all going into the question whether the petitioner is entitled or not to the aforesaid property. The question is the manner in which the contempt petition is filed and this Court is misled and that too by a Government Corporation.
The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
