E.Rajender vs. Sri V.K.Sharma
Facts
This Contempt Case (CC) No. 392 of 2018 was filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioners sought to punish the respondents for willful, deliberate, and intentional violation of interim orders passed by the High Court on July 11, 2017, in W.P.M.P. No. 27572 of 2017, which was part of W.P. No. 22396 of 2017. The contempt case was filed by numerous individuals, identified as petitioners, against officials of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as respondents. The core of the contempt petition was the alleged non-implementation of the interim orders. The respondents are officials of the LIC, including the Chairman, Zonal Manager, and Divisional Manager.
Held
The High Court noted that the Contempt Case was filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the alleged non-implementation of interim orders granted on July 11, 2017, in W.P.M.P. No. 27572 of 2017, in W.P. No. 22396 of 2017. The Court observed that W.P. No. 22396 of 2017 had been disposed of on August 21, 2023. Consequently, in view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the Court found no further adjudication was required in the contempt case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case was closed, with no costs awarded. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also deemed closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents have willfully, deliberately, and intentionally violated the interim orders of this Hon'ble High Court dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.M.P. No. 27572 of 2017 in W.P. No. 22396 of 2017, thereby constituting contempt of court? The petitioners argued that the respondents failed to implement the interim orders, which likely pertained to their absorption into service, by referencing a circular dated May 16, 2017. They sought to have the respondents punished for this non-compliance. The respondents, represented by counsel for LIC, were expected to defend their actions and demonstrate compliance or provide reasons for non-compliance with the court's interim orders. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments presented by the respondents, but the context implies they would have addressed the alleged violation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUE AY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 392 OF 2018 Petition filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, praying to punish the respondents for willful, deliberate and intentional violation of orders of this Hon'ble High Court, passed in W.P.IV.P.No.27572 of 2017 in W. P. No.22396 of 2017 daled1 1 .O7 .201 7 . Between:
E. Rajender S/o Late Ramanatham Age: 48yrs Occ: Pvt Service, R/o l,.No.L6-2-7 40/7 5/64, VK Dhage Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Dilsu knaga r, Hyderabad -60
V. Nagaraju S/o Veeramalli Narsaiah Age: 50yrs Occ: Pvt Service R/o H.No. 3-7, Havelighanpur, Iqedak 3- l(anakaraju S/o Narsaiah Aged: 47 years Occ: Pvt Service R/o 17-1911, Srinagar Colony, Siddipet, l"ledak Dist-502103 4. lvl. Sujatha D/o M. Venl<atacharyulu Age: 52yrs Occ: Housewife R/o 3O-167, 3T/AA, Sri Srinivasa Nilayam, East Chandragiri col, Satilguda, liecbad-s6
Sumathi Varanasi D/o Chandrarnouli.V. Age: 50 yrs Occ: Housewife R/o Plot no. 370, Flat no. 202 Sai Sri Ven Arcade, St no. 29, Gautamnagar, Malkajgiri Hydera bad- 50 0047 6.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.