M/S Shiva Engineers And Developers Through Its Partner Kapil Chopra Aged About 40 Years vs. Harjot Singh

Held

The Court held that the contempt petition was dismissed. The reasoning was based on the respondent's submission of a speaking order dated 14.8.2018, which admitted an amount of ₹87,61,756/- for work done. This order, after deductions for GST and income tax, had been sent to the District Treasury. The Court noted that while the claim for interest was denied in this speaking order, the passing of the speaking order itself was considered compliance with the earlier direction to decide the petitioner's legal notices. The rule issued against the respondent was discharged. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the speaking order dated 14.8.2018 in accordance with law if they remained aggrieved by its contents, particularly the denial of interest.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiva Engineers and Developers, filed a contempt petition (COCP No. 5865 of 2018) against Harjot Singh, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&R), Gurdaspur. The contempt petition alleged non-compliance with a previous High Court order dated 25.7.2018, which directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's legal notices. In response, the respondent filed a reply stating that a speaking order dated 14.8.2018 was passed, admitting an amount of ₹87,61,756/- for work done. However, the claim for interest was denied, and the admitted amount, after deductions for GST and income tax, was sent to the District Treasury. The petitioner remained aggrieved by the denial of interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has complied with the order dated 25.7.2018 by passing a speaking order, despite the petitioner's continued grievance regarding the denial of interest? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning compliance with court orders). The petitioner argued that the respondent had failed to fully comply with the order dated 25.7.2018, as the speaking order dated 14.8.2018 denied their claim for interest, leaving them aggrieved. The petitioner's primary contention was that their legal notices, which presumably included a claim for interest, had not been satisfactorily addressed. The respondent, through their reply, contended that a speaking order had been passed, admitting a substantial amount for work done and remitting it after statutory deductions. They argued that the denial of interest was a decision made in the speaking order, and the admitted amount had been processed. The respondent implicitly argued that passing a speaking order constituted compliance with the directive to decide the legal notices.