Apex International v. Chanchal Yadav & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 26 Nov 2024 · 2024:DHC:9203
Manoj Jain
CONT.CAS(C) 1869/2024
2024:DHC:9203
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a refund processing order, holding that the Competent Authority acted within reasonable time and the petitioner failed to cooperate.

Full Text
Translation output
CONT.CAS(C) 1869/2024 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th November, 2024
CONT.CAS(C) 1869/2024 & CM APPL. 68782/2024
APEX INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arif Ahmed Khan
WITH
Mr. Afroz Ahmad Khan, Mr. Manoj Awasthi and
Mr. Luv Mahajan, Advocates.
VERSUS
SMT CHANCHAL YADAV & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi (ASC) and Mr. Vivek Kr. Singh Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violating the direction contained in order dated 28.05.2024 passed by learned Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 7919/2024.

2. Para 4 and 5 of the above said order read as under:-

“4. In view of the above this petition is disposed of directing the Competent Authority to process the refund claim of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. If the Competent Authority holds that refund has 'to be granted then the refund amount be forthwith credited to the account of the petitioner. In case there is any ground to reject the claim for refund either in full or in part, the reasons thereof be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 5. While processing the refund claim, the Competent Authority shall also comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act.”

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the above said period of four weeks has already expired and he has not heard anything from the Competent Authority. CONT.CAS(C) 1869/2024 2

4. Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice and submits that various notices were issued to the petitioner to appear before the Competent Authority but since he did not appear and there was a direction to dispose of the matter in a time-bound manner, the Competent Authority has already taken a decision on 12.09.2024 whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking refund has been rejected in toto.

5. A copy of such decision has also been placed on record.

6. Taken on record. It be made part of e-file.

7. It is also undertaken by Mr. Singhvi, learned ASC that the copy of said order shall also be provided to petitioner/learned counsel for petitioner through e-mail today itself.

8. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner had never received any such communication. He, however, states that he would explore the other possible legal options available to petitioner under the law for challenging the above said order dated 12.09.2024.

9. In view of the above, nothing further survives in the present contempt petition.

10. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

11. Petitioner is at liberty to avail other permissible action under law.

JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2024