Jagdish Chander Malik vs Manmohan Juneja

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10692 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 8832 OF 2015 ]

JAGDISH CHANDER MALIK Appellant (s)

VERSUS

MANMOHAN JUNEJA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by

the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the High Court

of Delhi in Cont. CAS (C) No. 574 of 2014. As per

the said order, the High Court declined to grant any

relief in the application for contempt filed by the

appellant for the alleged violation of

non-implementation of the order dated 11.01.2013.

The order to the relevant extent reads as follows :-

“On consideration of the material

before us and the list of dates and

events which is all that the petitioner

appearing in person relied upon, we

find no merit in the appeal. Learned Signature Not Verified

single Judge made every endeavour to Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.26 11:49:50 IST Reason:

ensure that the documents are made

available to the petitioner and towards 2

that objective, even fixed a date, time

and place vide order dated 16.08.2012.

The petitioner, however, never visited

the office of the standing counsel for

Government of Delhi (counsel for ROC)

on the said date or time, but went five

days later. Obviously the records were

not available when the petitioner so

visited. The petitioner has been only

insisting that the records should have

been made available when he chose not

to go to the counsel, an aspect dealt

with by the learned single Judge in the

order dated 03.10.2012. The petitioner

has been unnecessarily obstinate

inasmuch as even in the order dated

03.10.2012, it is noticed that the

learned single Judge offered it to the

petitioner that another date can be

fixed, but the petitioner was not

willing to indicate any other date.

Despite this, the learned single Judge

has granted liberty to the petitioner

to approach the office of ROC so that

direction dated 16.08.2012 could be

complied with as and when the appellant

chooses to go to the office of the ROC. 3

The litigation is being carried out

unnecessarily without any purpose.”

3. In the impugned order, the High Court noticed, at

paragraphs 3 and 4, as follows :-

“As a matter of fact, the Division Bench has observed that the petitioner has been unnecessarily obstinate inasmuch as even in the order dated 3.10.2012 it has been noticed that the learned single judge offered to the petitioner that another date can be fixed for the purpose of inspection of the record in the office of ROC, yet the petitioner was not willing to indicate the date. Despite all this, the learned single judge had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the office of the ROC so that direction dated 16.8.2012 could be complied with by virtue of which the petitioner was to be provided certified copies of certain documents required by him.

4. I do not find that there is any direction, order or judgment passed by the court of which there is any disobedience and consequently, the present contempt petition is totally misconceived. Accordingly, the same is dismissed and the contempt notice is discharged.” 4

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as the learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent. Having regard to the

fact that the appellant only ultimately wants

compliance of his application for which he had been

granted date to approach the ROC, we are of the view

that it is in the interests of justice that a further

liberty is granted to the appellant. Accordingly,

this appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the

appellant to approach the ROC within a period of two

months from today, in which case, the ROC will take

appropriate steps in terms of the original order

dated 16.08.2012 in accordance of law, without

further delay.

No costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]

New Delhi;

August 21, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8832/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-12-2014 in CC No. 574/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

JAGDISH CHANDER MALIK Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MANMOHAN JUNEJA Respondent(s)

Date : 21-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv.

Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.

Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv.

Ms. Shabana, Adv.

Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR (Not Present)

For Respondent(s) Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv.

Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.

Mr Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)