Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1013 (PNJ)

Chanshyam Sorot v. A. K. Babbar

2000-08-28

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2000
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J. - The petitioner addressed a representation dated 9.12.1998 to the General Manager, Machine Tool Division, HMT Ltd., Pinjore. The aforesaid communication reads as under :- "Sir Please refer to your office letter No.PD/19.01/Sorot dated 29.10.1998 in response to the notice dated 14.10.1998 on behalf of M/s. Sorot Enterprises, and the reply sent by the undersigned on 23.11.1998. 2. That as desired by your office letter dated 29.10.1998 referred above, my client submitted a detailed statement of account w.e.f. 1.4.1995 to 20.11.19098 on 23.11.1998 through registered post, which has been duly received and acknowledged by your office. 3. That for the reasons best known to you, you are prolonging the payment as given in detailed statement submitted to your office. The delay on your part is causing un-desired harassment to my client. Hence I call upon you to release the payment due to M/s. Sorot Enterprises within 15 days of the receipt of this letter, failing which my client shall be constrained (to) initiate legal proceedings in appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances and recovery of the amount. Thanking you, Expecting prompt action." 2. Aggrieved that no action has been taken on the aforesaid representation, the petitioner approached this court by filing CWP No. 4047 of 1999 wherein this court passed an ex parte order inter alia directing the respondent to decide the representation dated 9.12.1998 (extracted above) "as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date a copy of this order is received." 3. The case of the petitioner now is that the representation made by him on 9.12.1998 has not been decided. This petition was filed on 15.6.1999 whereas the direction of this Court passed in CWP No. 4047 of 1999 is dated 24.3.1999. According to the petitioner, two months time expired on 12.6.1999 in view of the fact that a copy of the order dated 24.3.1999 passed in CWP No. 4047/1999 was sent by post to the respondent on 12.4.1999. 4. This Court issued notice in the instant case to the respondent. In response to the notice issued, a detailed written statement has been filed. 4. This Court issued notice in the instant case to the respondent. In response to the notice issued, a detailed written statement has been filed. A perusal of the written statement indicates that in so far as the dues payable by the Machine Tool Division, HMT, Pinjore to the petitioner are concerned, a meeting was held with the petitioner on 12.1.1999 wherein it was decided that the amount payable to the petitioner was Rs. 5,41,309/-. It is also the case of the respondent that it was categorically determined that the petitioner would not insist on payment of interest on account of delay in releasing the dues payable by the respondent to the petitioner. It is also the case of the respondent that during the meeting held on 12.1.1999, it was decided to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month and in obedience to the aforesaid agreement, the first instalment was paid to the petitioner on 27.1.1999 and the second on 1.3.1999. 5. After the petitioner had agreed to the settlement on 12.1.1999 without making a reference to the said settlement or the payment received by him, he approached this court by filing a CWP No. 4047/1999 wherein an ex parte order was passed on 24.3.1999 directing the respondent i.e. Machine Tool Division, HMT, Pinjore to decide the representation of the petitioner, preferably within two months. The order of this court dated 24.3.1999 was received by the Machine Tool Division, HMT, Pinjore on 16.4.1999. 6. The third instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the petitioner on 30.4.1999. After the payment of the aforesaid instalment, it is the case of the petitioner that he received a communication dated 1.5.1999 from the Machine Tool Division, HMT, Pinjore. A copy of the aforesaid communication has been appended to the petition as Annexure P2. It mentions that agreement/understanding was arrived at by the petitioner with HMT on 12.1.1999. It also reveals that by the time of issuance of the said letter, two instalments, the latter dated 1.3.1999, had already been released to the petitioner. Resultantly he had already received Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of payments due to him before he approached this court through CWP No. 4047 of 1999. It also reveals that the remaining amount due to the petitioner was Rs. 2,42,183/-. He was accordingly requested to make arrangements to collect the cheques of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,42,183/-. Resultantly he had already received Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of payments due to him before he approached this court through CWP No. 4047 of 1999. It also reveals that the remaining amount due to the petitioner was Rs. 2,42,183/-. He was accordingly requested to make arrangements to collect the cheques of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,42,183/-. 7. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner did not go there to collect the amount due to him. In the aforesaid circumstances, another communication was despatched to the petitioner, copy of which has been appended to the petition as Annexure P3 (and with the written statement as Annexure R3) wherein it is disclosed that a sum of Rs. 3,91,309/- was being released to the petitioner towards full and final payment against all his pending bills. The aforesaid amount is obviously different from the amount referred to in the communication dated 1.5.1999. It has been sought to be explained by learned Counsel for the respondent that the amount mentioned in Annexure P2 i.e. Rs. 2,42,183/- was a typographical error and it should have been Rs. 3,91,309/-. The amount payable to the petitioner was eventually released on 14.6.1999 through three cheques valuing Rs. 1,58,345/-. Rs. 1,73,684/- and Rs. 59,280/-. Details of the payments made to the petitioner on 27.1.1999, 1.3.1999 and 13.4.1999 and eventually on 14.6.1999 have not been disclosed by the petitioner when he filed the instant Contempt Petition on 15.6.1999 i.e. the date following a day on which a sum of Rs. 3,91,309/- was received by the petitioner as has been acknowledged in Annexure R3. 8. The petitioner denies having waived the interest component due to him from the respondent during the course of meeting held on 12.1.1999. Of course it is not subject matter of the controversy before this court in view of the fact that this court is not to determine the issues on merits. It is not within the jurisdiction of this court to decide what is due to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner had agreed and accepted in the meeting held on 12.1.1999 that he will not claim interest on the amount due. 9. The representation dated 9.12.1998, which was directed to be decided by the respondent preferably within 2 months, only relates to payment due to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner had agreed and accepted in the meeting held on 12.1.1999 that he will not claim interest on the amount due. 9. The representation dated 9.12.1998, which was directed to be decided by the respondent preferably within 2 months, only relates to payment due to the petitioner. These payments, according to the respondent, have already been released to the petitioner. The last communication indicates that the payments released are in full and final settlement to the petitioner. The petitioner inspite of having accepted the dues approached this court without disclosing the sequence and events wherein he accepted the amount of Rs. 5,41,309/-. The last of the payments was made on 14.6.1999 i.e. well before the expiry of two months period from the date when this court passed the order on 24.3.1999. 10. Not only this court has come to the conclusion that the respondent has fully complied with the directions issued by this court on 24.3.1999 passed in CWP No. 4047 of 1999, this court has also arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has unfairly suppressed the necessary particulars of this case. Accordingly, while finding no merit in this case, the same is dismissed with costs. Costs are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Costs be paid within one month from today. Petition dismissed.