High CourtsSingle Bench

Surendra Singh Chaudhary vs D.Senthil Pandian & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 17 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 UK CK 0269

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 347 Of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 132 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Writ Court had decided petitioner’s writ petition vide order dated 27.03.2017. Subsequently, on his review application, judgment dated

27.03.2017 was modified and respondents were directed to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity, in accordance with law, within a period of

four weeks.

2.

Alleging disobedience of the said order, petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition.

3.

A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. In paragraph no. 3 of the compliance affidavit, it has been stated that a sum of

Rs. 12,312/- as interest on delayed payment of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner through demand draft dated 11.09.2017.

4.

In such view of the matter, the Contempt Petition is closed.

5.

Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.