Telangana High Court
CC/2128/2013 of M/s. Columbia Petro Chem. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr.Y.V.Ramana Reddy on 31 December 2013
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DR. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2128 of 2013 ORDER: (Per VVA, J) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of an undertaking by the respondent herein as given to division bench of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Analysis
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKARAndHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DR. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.2128 of 2013
ORDER:(Per VVA, J)
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience of an undertaking bythe respondent herein as given to division bench of this court in O.S.A.No.16of 2012. The said O.S.A. preferred against the order of admission of thecompany petition came up for hearing before the division bench on18.07.2012. When it was accepted by the learned counsel for therespondent herein that advertisement of admission of the company petitionhas already been published in the newspapers during the hearing beforedivision bench, learned counsel for the respondent herein offered to pay theadmitted amounts in instalments and the same was recorded in the orderand it was also provided as under:
“In default of payment of any of such instalments, liberty isgranted to the respondent-company to approach before the companycourt for further orders in the matter, since advertisement has alreadybeen published in the matter. The outstanding amount claimed in thepetition appears to be to the tune of Rs.1.10 crores and regarding thebalance amount, since we have not passed any order in the windingup petition, such decision is relegated to a suit by the respondentcompany”
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner herein states that the saidundertaking having been violated by the respondent company and havingdragged the company petition for over a year, the proceedings under thecontempt of courts are required to be initiated as the respondent herein hasdefaulted on its undertaking.
We have considered the aforesaid submissions and in our view thedivision bench has merely recorded the offer of the learned counsel for therespondent that they will pay the admitted amount in instalments. This courtalso provided the default clause giving liberty to the respondent company toapproach the company court in case of default. We, therefore, do not think that any willful disobedience warranting initiation of proceedings undercontempt of courts arises in this case. Petitioner is at liberty to approach thecompany court and take all such remedies available under law.
The contempt case is, accordingly, dismissed. The dismissal of thiscontempt case would not in any way prejudice the petitioner in any of thelegal proceedings. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall standdismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
December 31, 2013LMV
_____________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKARAnd HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
LMV
CONTEMPT CASE No.2128 of 2013
Dt: 31.12.2013