Heeramani Sh'arma v. Nand Kumar
Case at a glance
Held
The Court held that, having taken into account the substantial payments already made and the fact that the issue of mode and manner of payment had been addressed in the writ appeals, the contempt petitions were disposed of and the respondents were not guilty of contempt.
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, all the contempt petitions are finally disposed off. A copy of this order be placed in all the aforestated connected petitions. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane x \-.
Summary
AI-generated summaryWritten by AI from the judgment text below. It is not part of the judgment and is not legal advice — read the original before relying on it.
Facts
The petitioners alleged that the respondents, officials of the Department of School Education, had failed to release payments of arrears in accordance with a court‑issued order directing payment in ten six‑monthly installments.
Issues
- Whether the respondents’ alleged non‑payment constituted contempt of court under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973.
Holding
The Court held that, having taken into account the substantial payments already made and the fact that the issue of mode and manner of payment had been addressed in the writ appeals, the contempt petitions were disposed of and the respondents were not guilty of contempt.
Reasoning
The Court noted that the respondents had released 50 % of the arrears and that the writ appeals had been decided in a manner that modified the original direction. Consequently, the Court found no intention to flout the order and discharged the contempt petitions.
Practical significance
The decision underscores that a court may dismiss contempt proceedings if the respondents have complied with the court’s direction to the extent that the order has been effectively fulfilled and the issue is already addressed in higher‑court proceedings.
Judgment
Shri Nand Kumar Verma and another r Contempt Petition No.283 of 2007 PetiUoner RamadharVerma Respondents Nand Kumar and another Versus Contempt Petition Nti.284 of 2007 Petitioner Manoj Kuhiar Jain Respondente Nand Kumar and another Versus •iNNNNN*1'^111- Petitionere '!111 Kailash Prakash Pandey and others Contempt Petition N6.25 of 2008 Respondent Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Petitiop No.36 of 2008 Petitioner/s T. K. Choudhary and others Respondent/s Mand KumarVenna Versus ."'V \. ^ Contempt Petition No.43 of 2008 Petitioner/s G. S. Makkad Respondentfs Nand Kumar and another Vereus Contempt Petition N6.51 of 2008 Petitioner/s N. V. Rao and others ResDondenUs Versus Nand KumarVerma Contempt Petition No.77 of 2008 "<. Petitioner/s Neeraj Shrivastava and others Respondentfe Nand KumarVenma Versus Contempt Petition No.183 of 2008 -Petitioner/s Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal ResDondentfs Vereus Nand Kumar Contempt Petition No.185 of 2008 Petitioner/s Durga Prasad Tripathi Respondentfs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Peto'tion No.208 of 2008 Petitioner/s Bhau Ram Diwedi Resoondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Petitioner/s -1- ResboridenVs Contempt Petition No.209 of 2008 " R. C. Jain and another Versus Nand KumSr \A Contempt Petition No.222 of 2008 Petitioner/s Mahesh Kumar Chandrakar and others b^ Versus Respondent/s Shri Nand Kumar Verma and another Contempt Petition No.229 of 2008 Petitioner/s R. S. Rai and others Respondent/s Shri Nand KumarVerma and another Versus -Petitioner/s ContemDt Case (Civil) No.267 of 2008 Mohd.
Shoeb Ansari and others Respondent/s Shri Nand Kumar and others Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.2B8 of 2008 Petitioner/s V. T. Peter and others Respondenffs Shri Nand Kumar and others Versus Contempt Case (Civil) No.279 of 2008 ' Petitioner/s Ramkrishna Banchor and others Respondent/s Nand Kumar Venna Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.293 of 2008 Petitjpnerte Smt. Bithika Roy Respondentfe ^y Petitioner/s ^:.. •\ Respondentfs ••-A Vereus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.302 of 2008 ~~ Krishna Dulal Roy t Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civilt No.317 of 2008 Petitioner/s Smt. P. Kachhap and others RespondenVs NandKumarVemna Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.338 of 2008 Petitioner/s Bhaskar Dutta Tiwari RespondenVs Versus M. K. Raut Contempt Case (Civil) No.14 of 2009 Petitioner/s Jagdamba Prasad Chaturvedi Respondent/s Vereus Nand Kumar Contemot Case (Civill No.15 of 2009 Petitioner/s Chote lal Tiwari Respondent/s Vereus Nand Kumar Petitioner/s Contempt Case (Civill No.16 of 2009 Yamuna Prasad Upadhyaya Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.17 of 2009 Petitionerfs Arun Kumar Shrivastava Respondentfe Versus Nand Kumar ContemBt Case (Civill No.18 of 2009 Petitioner/s Parmatma Singh Resoondenys \i Versus Nand Kumar ^.i~inr ^ 1n B K^ • Contempt Case (Civill No.19 of 2009 PeUtionerte Ganga Prasad Shukla Respondentfs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civin No.20 of 2009 Petitiojier/s Sambhu Prasad Sharma Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (CiviH No.21 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt.
Shashi Trivedi Resoondent/s Petitioner/s Resoondentfe Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.2^ of 2009 Prasad Singh Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.23 of 2009 Petitionerfe Ku. Priya SudhaGupta Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contemot Case (Civill No.24 of2009 Petitionerte Smt. Saraswati Mishra Respondent/s ^y iPetitionerfe ^T \RespondenUs s~. Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.25 of 2009 ~~ l-1eeramani Sharma Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.26 of 2009 Petltioner/s Smt. Kamal Gupta Respondent/s Vereus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.39 of 2009 PeUtioner/s Shyam Lal Verma Respondentfe Vereus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.40 of 2009 Petitionerte Smt. Sushila Devi Shrivastava Respondentfs Vereus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.41 of 2009 Petitionerfe Smt. Shikha Mukharjee Respondentte Petitioner/s Respondentfs Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase (Civill No.42 of 2009 Babban Tiwari Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.43 of 2009 Petitioner/s Anup Kumar Shrivastava Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.44 of 2009 Petitionerte Smt.
Kum Kum Roy Choudhary ~\, Respondent/s Versus, Nand Kumar ^ ~. ^A Contempt Case (Civill No.45 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ku. Baijanti Singh Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase (Civill No.46 of 2009 Petitioner/s Prem Narayan Tripathi Respondentfs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.47 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ram Surya Maurya Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Cpntempt Case (Civill No.48 of 2009 PeUtioner/s Motilal Verm^ Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.49 of 2009 Pefltioner/s Smt. Margreat George .1'"'^.. 'ResDondsntfe Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.50 of 2009 PeUtioner/s Pradeep Kumar Sinha ResDondentte Petjtioner/s ^ JResBondentfe s'.; Versus. Nand Kumar Contempt Case rcivill No.51 of 2009 Narbadeshwar Prasad Vishwakarma Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase rcivill No.52 of 2009 PetiUoner/s Smt. Kamla Devi RespondenVs Vereus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civil) No.53 of 2009 Petitioner/s Anil Kumar Shrivastava Respondentfs Vereus Nand Kumar ContemptCase (Civilt No.54 of 2009 Petitioner/s Deepa Sen Gupta \ Respondenys Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civil) No.55 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ashok Kumar Yadava Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.56 of 2009 Petitionerfe Smt.
Meena Singh RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.63 of 2009 Petitioner/s Vidur Sharma and othere Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase (Civilt No.91 of 2009 Petitionerfe Karam Sai and another .*'^> Respbndent/s Versus Nand Kumar /' y" u ^ IHMtS Contempt Case (Civill No.108 of 2009 Petitioner/s Niranjan Basak and others Respondent/s Nand KumarVenna Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.118 of 2009 Petitioner/s Jameela Begum and others f -Respondent/s liland KumarVerma Vereus Contempt Case (Civil) No.119 of 2009 Pet'rtioner/s Sabbir Hussain and others Respondent/s Nand Kumar Verma Versus Contempt Case (Civil) No.227 of 2009 Petitionerfe A. K. Sharma and others Respondent/s Nand Kumar and others Versus ,4.: ••-. (Petition under Article 215 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) Present: - Shri Anupam Dubey, Shri R. K. Jsiiswal, Shri R. S. Patel, Shri R. K. Kesharwani, Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Shri Azad Siddiqui and Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the respective petitioner/s.
Shri Sumit Verma, Shri Sushil Dubey, Shri Alok Bakshi, Shri B. L. Sahu on behalf of Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Advocate, Shri M. P., S. Bhatia, Shri -Sumesh Bajaj, Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Shri Mahendra Dubey and Shri Rakesh Jha, counsel for the respective respondenVs. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on 05-07-2012) X In this batch of contempt petitions fited in the year 2007, 2008 & 2009, C^spe^tive petitioners have alleged willful disobedience of common order dated \-. r 10 06-02-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4108 of 2005 and other connected matters fited by the writ petitioners.
Leamed counsel for the respectiye petitionere, in these batch of contempt petitions, raised common submissions that though there was a direction in the writ petition filed by the respect'ive writ petitioners for payment of arrears of 5 Pay Commission in ten six-monthly installments, but those installments are not regulariy released default being made respondents/contemnors in releasing the amount, as per the order passed in the -< writ petitions.
On hand, learned counsel respective respondents/contemnore, in all the cases, have categorically.'stated that there was no intention to flout the order of the Court and in all the cases, arrears are being released and it is not the fact that no payments are made. It has also been submitted that as the order passed in the writ petition regarding payment of arrears in ten six-monthly installment involve(l allocation of huge funds and proper budgetary sanction, writ appeals were filed by the State in all the cases and those writ appeals were admitted only for the limited purpose of examining as to whether the direction given by the Writ Court to pay the amount of arrears Jn ten six-monthly installments is ijlegal, factually unsustainableor it needs, modification. He submits that the aforesaid writ appeals remained pendi finally decided by a common order dated 29-06-2012 passed in Wr'rt Appeal No.88 of 2007 and bateh of appeals and the order of the writ Court in so far as payment- of arreare in ten six-monthly installments is concerned, has already been modified. He submits that the appellate Court has also taken into consideration that 50% of the amount towards arrears have already been paid and issue is sub judice in the Supreme Court at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is, therefore,- submitted thgt there was n6 intention to flout x 11 \.A the order of the Court and as per the directions of the Court, huge amount of arreare have already been paid.
Taking into consideration that in each of the cases in hand, substantial payments have been made to the petitioners from time to time and that writ appeals filed by the State were admitted specifically on the issue regarding mode and manner of payment, and further submission that 50% ofthe amount towards arrears has already been released, 1 am not inclined to proceed further in the \» aforesaid contempt petitions. Rule is discharged.
Accordingly, all the contempt petitions are finally disposed off. A copy of this order be placed in all the aforestated connected petitions. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane x \-.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court held that, having taken into account the substantial payments already made and the fact that the issue of mode and manner of payment had been addressed in the writ appeals, the contempt petitions were disposed of and the respondents were not guilty of contempt.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the respondents’ alleged non‑payment constituted contempt of court under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 05 Jul 2012. The bench was MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.