Dhanapal A.C. vs. Dora Babu
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble C.Praveen Kumar
Listed On:
3 Sept 2021
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Contempt Case No.1379 of 2012
ORDER:
The present contempt case came to be filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for violation of the order dated 06.02.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.341 of 2012, wherein this Court directed the 2nd respondent therein not to seize the lorries of the petitioners bearing Registration Nos.AP-3Y-0909 and AP-03W-4033 in case the petitioners pay 50% of the defaulted instalments of their respective vehicles within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
As seen from the record, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 23.04.2021, the matter was directed to be listed to today. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that while disposing of the writ petition, this court passed a conditional order on 06.02.2012, which is as under:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 2nd respondent not to seize the lorries of the petitioners bearing registration Nos.AP-3Y-0909 and AP-03W-4033 in case the petitioners pay 50% of the defaulted instalments of their respective vehicles within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioners shall pay the remaining 50% of the defaulted instalments, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioners shall also continue to pay every instalment by 10th of each month. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the aforementioned
C.C.No.1379 of 2014
instalments, the 2nd respondent would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law."
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the said order, the respondent has issued notices to the petitioner calling upon him to comply with the conditional order passed by this court on 06.02.2012, but the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order and accordingly, the respondent seized the vehicles. He placed material before this court evidencing issuance of notices to the petitioners.
Having regard to the above, since the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order dated 06.02.2012, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the order dated 06.02.2012.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 03-09-2021 Ksn