AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
This contempt petition is preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with article 215 of the Constitution of India arising
out of order dated 09.09.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5997 of 2007.
As per the petitioner, he was working under dealership of respondents and the dealership was terminated on 30.08.2007. Termination order was
challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3396 of 2009 and vide order dated 09.092011, this Court directed restoration of dealership and
also directed for all consequential benefits.
After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed a return and additional return supported with documents. As per their return, the dealership is
restored on 15.07.2013 in compliance of the order of this Court. As the dealership is restored that part of the order is complied with. The respondents
submitted that in compliance of consequential benefits, they have paid cost of lubricant which is mentioned in Panchnama prepared at the time of
termination of dealership, therefore, there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and proceeding is liable to be dropped.
Now the point for consideration before this Court is whether any willful disobedience is committed by any of the respondent to order of this Court
which amounts to civil contempt as per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Admittedly, dealership is restored and that part is complied
with, therefore, there is no disobedience regarding restoration of dealership. A Panchnama was prepared regarding lubricants found in the petitioner's
place i.e. M/s Gagan Fuels. As per the respondents, the Panchnama was prepared on 30.08.2007. As per document C-12, Price of 330 Litre of
lubricants to the tune of Rs. 1,65,021/- is paid to the petitioner. As per document C- 16, amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- is paid.
It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that as per Annexure D/1, Rs. 50,400/- is paid through Demand Draft/ Banker Cheque No.
303627 dated 14.08.2014. It is further submitted that the sum mentioning regarding lubricant is not genuine because in some place, piece of lubricant
was to be mentioned, but it is mentioned in cash. The respondents have cleared the amount of lubricants and there is no case of willful disobedience. It
is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is claiming business loss from the respondent which is not permissible under the law
of contempt because profit or loss is fluctuated due to market condition and it cannot be actually calculated. Ex. C/10 is original Panchnama, but value
of lubricants is not mentioned in the said Panchnama. The amount of lubricant is paid to the petitioner as per documents C-12 & C-16 and Annexure
D/1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the article seized as per Panchnama is valued to Rs. 20,40,000/-, therefore, this amount should be
paid by the respondents. In view of this Court, in original Panchnama, the value of article is not mentioned, therefore, this amount which is based on
speculation cannot be taken in this proceeding. The liability is normally made on admitted and indisputable facts. It is not a case of willful disobedience
of order of this Court as dealership is already restored and amount of lubricant is also paid.
Consequently, the instant contempt petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and proceeding of contempt is hereby dropped.