1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10692 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 8832 OF 2015 ] JAGDISH CHANDER MALIK                         Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS MANMOHAN JUNEJA                               Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Cont. CAS (C) No. 574 of 2014.  As per the said order, the High Court declined to grant any relief in the application for contempt filed by the appellant  for  the  alleged  violation  of non-implementation  of  the  order  dated  11.01.2013. The order to the relevant extent reads as follows :-

“On  consideration  of  the  material

before  us  and  the  list  of  dates  and

events which is all that the petitioner

appearing  in  person  relied  upon,  we

find  no  merit  in  the  appeal.  Learned

single  Judge  made  every  endeavour  to

ensure  that  the  documents  are  made

available to the petitioner and towards

2

that objective, even fixed a date, time

and place vide order dated 16.08.2012.

The petitioner, however, never visited

the office of the standing counsel for

Government of Delhi (counsel for ROC)

on the said date or time, but went five

days later. Obviously the records were

not  available  when  the  petitioner  so

visited.  The petitioner has been only

insisting that the records should have

been made available when he chose not

to go to the counsel, an aspect dealt

with by the learned single Judge in the

order dated 03.10.2012. The petitioner

has  been  unnecessarily  obstinate

inasmuch  as  even  in  the  order  dated

03.10.2012,  it  is  noticed  that  the

learned single Judge offered it to the

petitioner  that  another  date  can  be

fixed,  but  the  petitioner  was  not

willing  to  indicate  any  other  date.

Despite this, the learned single Judge

has granted liberty to the petitioner

to approach the office of ROC so that

direction  dated  16.08.2012  could  be

complied with as and when the appellant

chooses to go to the office of the ROC.

3

The  litigation  is  being  carried  out

unnecessarily without any purpose.”

3. In the impugned order, the High Court noticed, at paragraphs 3 and 4, as follows :-

“As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Division Bench has observed that the petitioner has  been  unnecessarily  obstinate inasmuch  as  even  in  the  order dated  3.10.2012  it  has  been  noticed that the learned single judge offered to the petitioner that another date can be  fixed  for  the  purpose  of inspection of the record in the office of  ROC,  yet  the  petitioner  was  not willing to indicate the date. Despite all this, the learned single judge had granted  liberty  to  the  petitioner  to approach the office of the ROC so that direction  dated  16.8.2012  could  be complied  with  by  virtue  of  which  the petitioner was to be provided certified copies of certain documents required by him. 4.  I  do  not  find  that  there  is  any direction, order or judgment passed by the  court  of  which  there  is  any disobedience  and  consequently,  the present  contempt  petition  is  totally misconceived. Accordingly, the same is dismissed  and  the  contempt  notice  is discharged.”

4

4.  Heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant  as  well  as  the  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the respondent.  Having regard to the fact  that  the  appellant  only  ultimately  wants compliance of his application for which he had been granted date to approach the ROC, we are of the view that it is in the interests of justice that a further liberty is granted to the appellant.  Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the ROC within a period of two months from today, in which case, the ROC will take appropriate  steps  in  terms  of  the  original  order dated  16.08.2012  in  accordance  of  law,  without further delay.

No costs.    .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]  

New Delhi; August 21, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.9               COURT NO.5               SECTION XIV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  8832/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  03-12-2014 in CC No. 574/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) JAGDISH CHANDER MALIK                              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS MANMOHAN JUNEJA                                    Respondent(s) Date : 21-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Adv.  

Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv.  Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.  Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv.  Ms. Shabana, Adv.  Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, AOR (Not Present)

                   For Respondent(s) Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv.  Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Adv.  

                   Mr Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR                      

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed

non-reportable Judgment Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                            (RENU DIWAN)   COURT MASTER                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)