Anup Kumar Shrivastava v. District Korea & Ors.
Case at a glance
Held
The court found that substantial payments had already been made and that the respondents had no intention to flout the order. Consequently, all the contempt petitions were disposed of.
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 215
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 12
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. Tumane Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge
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 petitioner sought payment of arrears of the 5th Pay Commission in ten six‑monthly installments. The respondents, Nand Kumar and others, were alleged to have failed to release the payments as directed by the court.
Issues
- Whether the respondents had intentionally flouted the court’s order to pay the arrears in the prescribed manner, thereby constituting contempt.
Holding
The court found that substantial payments had already been made and that the respondents had no intention to flout the order. Consequently, all the contempt petitions were disposed of.
Reasoning
The court considered the submissions that 50% of the arrears had been released, that the writ appeals had been decided in favour of the respondents, and that the issue was now sub‑judice in the Supreme Court. Given these facts, the court was not inclined to proceed further with the contempt petitions.
Practical significance
The decision underscores that a court may dismiss contempt proceedings if it is satisfied that the respondents have complied with the payment order and that the matter is pending in a higher court.
Judgment
Neeraj Shrivastava and others RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Verma Contempt Petition No.183 of 2008 Petitioner/s Laxmi Narayan Jaiswal Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Petition No.185 of 2008 Petitioner/s Durga Prasad Tripathi RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contemot Petition No.208 of 2008 Petitioner/s Bhau Ram Diwedi ResoondenVs Petitioner/s Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Petition No.209 of 2008 '"' R. C. Jain and another Versus Nand Kumteir Contempt Petition No.222 of 2008 Petitioner/s Mahesh Kumar Chandrakar and others l.v Versus Respondent/s Shri Nand Kumar Verma and another Contempt Petition No.229 of 2008 Petitioner/s R. S. Rai and others Resoondent/s Shri Nand Kumar Verma and another Versus Contemot Case (Civill No.267 of 2008 Petitioner/s Mohd. Shoeb Ansari and others Resoondent/s Shri Nand Kumar and others Versus Contempt Case fCivill No.268 of 2008 Petitioner/s V. T. Peter and others Respondent/s Shri Nand Kumar and others Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.279 of 2008 ' Petitioner/s Ramkrishna Banchor and others Respondent/s Nand Kumar Verma Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.293 of 2008 Petitioner/s Smt.
Bithika Roy Respondent/s Petitioner/s Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.302 of 2008 ^ Krishna Dulal Roy Versus NandKumar Contempt Case (Civill No.317 of 2008 Petitioner/s Smt. P. Kachhap and others RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Verma Contempt Case (Civill No.338 of 2008 Petitioner/s Bhaskar Dutta Tiwari Respondent/s Versus M. K. Raut Contempt Case (Civill No.14 of 2009 Petitioner/s Jagdamba Prasad Chaturvedi Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.15 of 2009 Petitioner/s Chote lal Tiwari Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Petitioner/s Contempt Case (Civill No.16 of 2009 Yamuna Prasad Upadhyaya Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase (Civill No.17 of 2009 Petitioner/s ArunKumar Shrivastava Resoondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.18 of 2009 Petitioner/s Parmatma Singh \ Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar l^ ContemptCase (Civill No.19 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ganga Prasad Shukla Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.20 of 2009 Petitioner/s Sambhu Prasad Sharma Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.21 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt.
Shashi Trivedi Respondent/s Petitioner/s RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civil) No.2^i of 2009 Prasad Singh Versus Nand Kumar Contemot Case (Civill No.23 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ku. Priya Sudha Gupta Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.24 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt. Saraswati Mishra Respondent/s Petitioner/s Resoondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civil) No.25 of 2009 ^ Heeramani Sharma Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.26 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt. Kamal Gupta ResDondentfe Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civil) No.39 of 2009 Petitioner/s Shyam Lal Verma Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civil) No.40 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt. Sushila Devi Shrivastava RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.41 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt. Shikha Mukharjee RespondenVs Petitioner/s Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civilt No.42 of 2009 Babban Tiwari Versus Nand Kumar Contemot Case^(Civill No.43 of 2009 Petitioner/s Anup Kumar Shrivastava Respondent/s Petitioner/s RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar ContemDt CasefCivill No.44 of 2009 " Smt.
Kum Kum Roy Choudhary Versus Nand Kumar ^ \' Contempt Case (Civill No.45 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ku. Baijanti Singh Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.46 of 2009 Petitioner/s Prem Narayan Tripathi ^ResDondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.47 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ram Surya Maurya RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.48 of 2009 Petitioner/s Motilal Verm^ Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contemot Case fdvill No.49 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt. Margreat George Resoondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.50 of 2009 Petitioner/s Pradeep Kumar Sinha Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.51 of 2009 Petitioner/s Narbadeshwar Prasad Vishwakarma Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar v 8 ContemptCase (Civil) No.52 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt. Kamla Devi RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case {Civill No.53 of 2009 Petitioner/s Anil Kumar Shrivastava Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.54 of 2009 Petitioner/s Deepa Sen Gupta RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar Contempt Case (Civill No.55 of 2009 Petitioner/s Ashok Kumar Yadava Respondent/s Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase (Civill No.56 of 2009 Petitioner/s Smt.
Meena Singh RespondenVs Versus Nand Kumar ContemptCase fCivill No.63 of2009 Petitioner/s Vidur Sharma and others ResoondenVs Versus Nand Kumar ContemDt Case (Civill No.91 of 2009 Petitioner/s Karam Sai and another ResDondent/s Versus Nand Kumar ^, Contempt Case (Civill No.108 of 2009 Petitioner/s Niranjan Basak and others Respondent/s Nand Kumar Verma Vereus Contempt Case (CMIl No.118 of 2009 Petitioner/s Jameela Begum and others ^espondent/s NandKumarVerma Versus Contempt Case (Civill No.119 of 2009 Petitioner/s Sabbir Hussain and others RespondenVs Nand Kumar Verma Versus Contempt Case (Civil^ No.227 of 2009 Petitioner/s A. K. Sharma and others Respondent/s Nand Kumar and others Versus (PeUtion under Article 215 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) Present: - Shri Anupam Dubey, Shri R. K. Jaiswal, 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 forthe respective respondent/s. ORDERfORAU (Passed on 05-07-2012) In this batch of contempt petitions fited in the year 2007, 2008 & 2009, respective petitioners have alleged willful disobedience of common order dated 10 06-02-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4108 of 2005 and other connected matters filed by the writ petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respective petitioners, in these batch of contempt petitions, raised common submissions that though there was a direction in the writ petition filed by the respective writ petitioners for payment of arrears of 5th Pay Commission in ten six-monthly installments, but those installments are not regularly 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/contemnors, 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 arreare 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 .in ten six-monthly installments isjjlegal, factually unsustainableor it needs some modification. He submits that the aforesaid writ appeals remained pending until finally decided by a common order dated 29-06-2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.88 of 2007 and batch of appeals and the order of the writ Court in so far as payment of arrears 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 that there was n6 intention to flout ^ 11 ^\ the order of the Court and as per the directions of the Court, huge amount of arrears 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. Tumane Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The court found that substantial payments had already been made and that the respondents had no intention to flout the order. Consequently, all the contempt petitions were disposed of.
What was the main issue before the Court?
Whether the respondents had intentionally flouted the court’s order to pay the arrears in the prescribed manner, thereby constituting contempt.
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 215; 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.