Back
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
Contempt Petition
1714 of 2020
Parties Name
M/s Sumeet Agencies
Vs.
Mrs. Sonia Meena and another
Bench Constituted
Single Bench
Judgment delivered
By
Hon’ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat.
Whether approved
for reporting
Yes.
Name of counsel for
parties
For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Agrawal,
Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Anshuman
Singh, Advocate.
Law laid down
Error of judgment or decision is not contempt
but ex-facie disobedience of the order amounts
to contumacious conduct, which attracts
contempt proceedings against concerned party.
Significant paragraph
number
8
(O R D E R)
28/01/2022
Petitioner has filed this contempt petition making a prayer for
initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents contemnors, who
had deliberately and voluntarily disobeyed orders of this Court dated
19.08.2019 and 17.09.2019 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 60/2019.
2.
Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that by order dated
21.07.2016, Managing Director-respondent No.1 had cancelled agreement
of way side amenity situated at Sakadehi, Betul and petitioner was asked to
hand over vacant possession to M.P. State Tourism Development
Corporation. Petitioner raised a dispute before Arbitrator as per Clause 36
2
Conc No. 1714/2020
of agreement. Arbitrator vide its award dated 03.10.2017 passed following
orders : -
"For the reasons analysed hereinabove this authority
gives the following order to the respective relief sought in
the claim filed by the applicant.
(i) This authority is of the view that the impugned
order dated 21.07.2016 passed by respondent
No.3 regarding termination of the contract will
remain enforceable and there is no need to
interfere with it.
(ii) In the light of the fact that the contract has
been already terminated there is no need for this
authority to direct the Corporation to give
direction for providing facilities at the WSA.
(iii) In this relief the applicant has to pay the lease
rent as demanded by the respondent Corporation.
As far as counterclaim filed by the respondent
Corporation the same are bare demands and only service
tax and interest as per the contract which justifiably
should be paid by the applicant to the Corporation. Thus
it should be paid by the applicant to the corporation.
Hence this authority awards the counterclaim of Rs.
9,76,247.65/- in favour of Corporation the respondent.
The cost claimed by the respondent Corporation of Rs.
1,00,000/- (One lakh only) is not accepted by this
authority and it is disallowed. Both the parties will bear
their respective costs."
3.
Petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 calling in question award dated 03.10.2017.
Learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Betul vide its order dated
25.07.2019 dismissed the application. Petitioner filed Arbitration Appeal
No. 60/2019 before High Court under Section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. High Court vide its order dated 19.08.2019 stayed
operation of impugned orders dated 03.10.2017 and 25.07.2019.
3
Conc No. 1714/2020
4.
Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that sole Arbitrator
passed award that order dated 21.07.2019 passed by Managing Director,
M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation will remain enforceable.
Said order was stayed in Arbitration Appeal, therefore, termination of way
side amenity agreement was stayed and respondents contemnors had
committed wilful disobedience of stay order by taking possession over
way side amenity. On basis of aforesaid submission, prayer was made for
initiating contempt proceedings and punish the contemnors for
disobedience of Court order.
5.
Respondent No.1 filed reply to contempt petition and submitted that
there was no wilf
