AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Sapre, J.—Having heard learned Counsel for the respondent and having heard the petitioner in person, in my opinion this contempt application has rendered infructuous in as much as the payment for which this contempt was filed has since been made by the respondents to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner who appeared in person was that he was put to mental harassment and secondly, some amount has not yet been paid by the respondents and hence, proceedings for initiating contempt be taken out against the respondents.
In my opinion, this Court does not consider it proper to take out any contempt proceedings because, while passing the orders in the writ petition, out of which this contempt arose, no final determination of the amount had been done. In case, therefore, if the petitioner has any grievance about the less payment than what he was actually entitled to then the remedy lies somewhere else and in an appropriate Court of law for adjudication of his claim and entitlement.
Suffice it to say, so far as issuance of notice to contempt is concerned, it has served its purpose because whole payment has been made by the respondents to the petitioner.
I, therefore, dismiss this contempt petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy for recovery of their amount as per law. Rule nisi issued is discharged.