SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Guj) 77

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.B.MEHTA, P.D.DESAI
HASMUKHLAL C.SHAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
MISC.APPLN. 403 of 1977
Decided On : 08/30/1977

Advocates Appeared: A.H.YAGNIK, G.N.DESAI, H.P.SOMPURA

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1926-Sec. 2 (b)-Contempt-Wilful disobedience.-Test of.

       What is required to be established is "wilful disobedience" to any judgment, decree direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

J. B. MEHTA, P. D. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) ON February 13 1976 a Division Bench of this Court made the following peremptory order while allowing Letters Patent Appeal No. 276 of 1974in the result the appeal is allowed The respondents are directed to pay up all the petitioners the arrears of their aforesaid special pay within three months from the date of this order. Rule is made absolute with costs all throughout. The Writ communicating the aforesaid directive was admittedly served on the State Government (one of the respondents to the Letters Patent Appeal) on or about March 8 1976 The certified copy of the judgment of this Court was admittedly made available to the State Government on or about May 13 1976

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the order made by this Court the arrears of special pay were required to be paid to the petitioners on or before May 12 1976 Since payment was not made accordingly the petitioners addressed a letter dated July 22 1976 to the second respondent herein (Secretary to the Government Revenue Department) through their advocate drawing his attention to the noncompliance with the order of the Court and specifying tentatively the amount due to each petitioner and requesting him to move the State Government to issue necessary orders at an early date. The letter was admittedly received but it was not even acknowledged A reminder was thereafter sent by the petitioners through their advocates on November 11 1976 and it again met with the same fate. The petitioners then addressed another letter through their advocates on February 9 1977 to the second respondent (annexing thereto a copy of the earlier letter dated July 22 1976 and requesting him to direct payment of arrears within a week of the receipt of the letter and advising him that in case no action was taken they would be compelled to institute contempt proceedings in this Court for the disobedience of its orders. To this communication an undated and unsigned reply was received by the advocates of the petitioners advising that Government have already issued the orders for payment of arrears etc. arising out of the decision of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 207 of 1970 and that the arrears being large it is likely to take time to work out the exact amount payable to your clients. The letter proceeded to state that the Accountant General Rajkot and the concerned officers were being requested to make the payment at the earliest.

( 3 ) EVEN thereafter nothing further happened and the petitioners thereupon filed this Contempt Petition on August 19 1977 praying that there being wilful disregard of the order of this Court the respondents should be committed for contempt. Rule was issued on the petition on August 22 1977 and the second respondent was directed to remain present in the Court on August 26 1977 the returnable date.

( 4 ) ON August 26 1977 the second respondent was present in the Court The learned Government Pleader appeased on behalf of the respondents and tendered an affidavit dated August 25 1977 sworn by the second respondent.

( 5 ) THE affidavit at the outset and in the conclusion tenders an unconditional and unqualified apology for the delay occasioned in implementation of the writ of this Court and then proceeds to explain the causes of delay. To state briefly the facts emerging from the affidavit are as follows (1) The Writ of this Court directing payment within the limited time was received on March 8 1976 and certified copy of the judgment was received on May 13 1976 (2) The Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records and the Government Solicitor advised the Government by their letters dated April 23 1976 and May 25 1976 respectively that the case was not a fit one for further appeal; (3) The Legal Department tendered similar advice on or about June 16 1976 (4) On May 20 1976 the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records was requested to work out the amount of the special pay payable to the petitioners in accordance with th











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top