AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This Contempt Case is to take action against the respondent for not complying with the undertaking learned Senior Advocate had made in this Court on behalf of the respondent when the Original Petition was disposed of by judgment dated 23.12.2011. This Court refused to interfere with the order which was under challenge in O.P(C) No. 4288 of 2011. At that time learned counsel for petitioners in the Contempt Case made a submission that substantial amount is in arrears by way of rent from the respondent. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent in the Original Petition agreed that whatever amount respondent is legally bound to pay will be paid to the petitioner within a week from the date of judgment. That submission of learned Senior Advocate was recorded. There was also a direction to the respondent to comply with the undertaking.
In this proceeding grievance of petitioners is that the above said undertaking is not complied. Respondent states that stock of business kept in the shop room valued at about Rupees Three Crores and the security deposit of Rupees Thirty lakhs is still with the petitioners.
I need not go into these controversies in this proceeding. I have recorded the submission made by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent while disposing of the Original Petition. If petitioners are of the view that the undertaking made by the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent and the consequent direction this Court has made in the judgment in O.P(C) No. 4288 of 2011 is executable before the appropriate Forum, it is open to the petitioners to do so.
Non-payment of the amount as undertaken cannot amount to contempt of court so that this Court is required to proceed with this case.
Contempt Case is closed with the above observation.