D.S. Telecom Proprietorship Firm Through Owner Dilshad Ahmed vs. Sanjay Shukla

Held

The Court held that in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, which indicated that a significant payment had been made and the remaining amount would be released shortly, nothing further survived for adjudication in the contempt petition. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The Court also observed that if the petitioner remained aggrieved regarding the compliance or disbursement of the remaining amount, they were at liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the competent forum. The contempt proceedings were accordingly dropped.

Facts

The petitioner, D.S. Telecom Proprietorship Firm, through its owner Dilshad Ahmed, filed a contempt petition civil against respondents, including Sanjay Shukla and others. The petitioner sought compliance regarding an outstanding amount. Respondent No. 2's counsel submitted that a payment of Rs. 16,02,691/- had already been made after statutory deductions, including GST. The remaining amount was stated to be with the PIC and would be released within 15 days. In light of these submissions, the Court noted that nothing further remained for adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the contempt petition is maintainable given the submissions made by Respondent No. 2 regarding payment and release of the remaining amount. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, by filing the contempt petition, implicitly argued that the respondents had failed to comply with a previous order or undertaking, necessitating court intervention. The specific arguments are not detailed as the matter was resolved based on the respondent's submissions. Respondent's Argument: Respondent No. 2 argued that substantial compliance had been achieved with a payment of Rs. 16,02,691/- after statutory deductions, including GST, and that the remaining amount would be released within 15 days, rendering the contempt petition infructuous.