CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 01 CAT CK 0008

Laxmi Devi, W/O Late Paras Nath vs Rajiv Agrawal & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 12 January 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) · Pratima K Gupta, Member J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
C.C.P No. 20 Of 2018 In Original Application No. 461 Of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 401 words

Tarun Shridhar, Member A

1.

We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.

2.

None present for the petitioner. Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

3.

Heard learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record available with us in pdf

4.

When the case was listed on 01.09.2021, this court had passed the following order: -

“We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.

No one is present for the applicant either in court or online through video conferencing. Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the

respondents is present in court.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that now this contempt petitioner does not survive and it has become infructuous perhaps

that is the reason that no one has appeared before this court to press it, therefore, the contempt proceedings may be closed.

As today no one is present for the petitioner, it does not appear proper to pass any adverse order in his absence.

List on 28.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to intimate the counsel for the petitioner in writing about the date fixed.

It is made clear that if on the next date, the petitioner remained absent, the order will be passed on merits after perusing the record.

Copy of the order be provided to learned counsel for the respondents.â€​

5.

As sequel to the aforesaid order, this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed for want of non-prosecution. Further, learned counsel for the

respondents draws attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in W.P. 52667/2017 wherein the order of the Tribunal has

been challenged. Hon’ble High Court while upholding the limited direction of the Tribunal held that “..the amount directed to be paid by the

Tribunal shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents subject to respondents furnishing security to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.â€.

Learned counsel for the respondents mentions that he has filed an additional affidavit of compliance stating therein that despite repeated request to the

applicant to furnish the said security, the applicant has not been coming forward at all. There is no one to contest his statement.

6.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the contempt proceedings are liable to be closed and, accordingly closed. The notice is discharged.

7.

Hon’ble Ms. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (Judicial) has consented to this order during virtual hearing.