M/S Mdda Ramky Isbt Ltd vs Ombir Singh Tomar

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No(s). 1624 OF 2017 in SLP(C) No. 29876/2016

M/S MDDA RAMKY ISBT LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

OMBIR SINGH TOMAR Respondent(s)

O R D E R

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation

of Order dated 17th April, 2017 passed in I.A. NO.2 of 2016 in

SLP(C)No.29876 of 2016, which reads as under:

“I.A.No.2 of 2016

This application has been filed with the following prayer:-

“(A) To pass an order for directing the respondent to pay the admitted licence fee and common area Maintenance charges of the premises from August, 2012 till date.”

The prayer, as above is allowed.

The deposit in terms of the prayer shall be made within one month from today.

I.A.No.2 of 2016 is, accordingly, allowed.” Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.01.10 (2) 10:21:21 IST Reason: It is pointed out that SLP(C)No.29876 of 2016 came to be

dismissed on 29th August, 2017. It was thereafter I.A. No.2 of

2016 was filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to 2

pay the admitted licence fee and common area maintenance

charges of the premises from August, 2012 till the date of

filing of the application, which came be allowed on 17th April,

2017. As pointed out earlier, alleging violation of Order

dated 17th April, 2017 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2016, the present

contempt petition has been filed.

(3) Thereafter, number of orders came to be passed in the

contempt petition by this Court and pursuant to Order dated 11 th

May, 2018, bailable warrants were issued against the

respondent.

(4) Since no one appeared on behalf of the respondent despite

service of notice, by order dated 3rd August, 2018, non-bailable

warrants were issued by this Court against the respondent

through the jurisdictional police station.

(5) By order dated 4th September, 2018, the Magistrate of the

competent jurisdiction was directed to initiate contempt

proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. immediately and

Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, was also directed to take

further steps to see that the respondent was arrested and

produced before this Court.

(6) Respondent was arrested and sent to custody on 25th

September, 2018 and thereafter number of orders came to be

passed by this Court.

3

(7) The petitioner has already filed execution petition before

the competent court to execute the final award passed by the

Arbitrator. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy –

viz., execution of the final award before the executing court

in accordance with law. When regular execution petition is

pending, it cannot be said that the respondent has

intentionally violated the order dated 17th April, 2017.

(8) In the above facts and circumstances of the present case

we are not inclined to proceed with the contempt proceedings

against the respondent. Contempt is a matter between the Court

and the alleged contemnor who is alleged to have violated the

orders of this Court. The contempt proceedings are dropped and

the contempt petition is closed.

(9) The respondent is ordered to be released forthwith.

(10) All the pending applications shall stand disposed of.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 4, 2019.