Dear Mr Sahni,
This order dated 15.04.2013 was issued at a time when Mr Asthana had approached Supreme Court when his contempt petition was still pending.
The SLP filed by LIC was also pending in the Supreme Court.
The fact SC had dismissed the IA that no case had been made out for issuing any further direction to the petitioner in the matter of deposit of the amount in terms of the initial order passed by the Court does not amount to holding that what was deposited in the Jaipur Registry was the correct amount.
Only a case was not made out for further directions as desired. So the matter should have been clinched in the Jaipur Bench while handling the contempt case. But unfortunately, when SC had refused to stay the Jaipur verdict dt 12/1/2010 while granting leave for appeal on 30/9/2013,the contempt petition at Jaipur was dismissed as withdrawn on 14/2/2014 with liberty to the petitioner to seek clarification. But it is significant to note that the contempt petition was not dismissed on merits.
So the fact remains that the amount deposited in the Jaipur Registry continues to be under dispute.
This is my personal view.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
This order dated 15.04.2013 was issued at a time when Mr Asthana had approached Supreme Court when his contempt petition was still pending.
The SLP filed by LIC was also pending in the Supreme Court.
The fact SC had dismissed the IA that no case had been made out for issuing any further direction to the petitioner in the matter of deposit of the amount in terms of the initial order passed by the Court does not amount to holding that what was deposited in the Jaipur Registry was the correct amount.
Only a case was not made out for further directions as desired. So the matter should have been clinched in the Jaipur Bench while handling the contempt case. But unfortunately, when SC had refused to stay the Jaipur verdict dt 12/1/2010 while granting leave for appeal on 30/9/2013,the contempt petition at Jaipur was dismissed as withdrawn on 14/2/2014 with liberty to the petitioner to seek clarification. But it is significant to note that the contempt petition was not dismissed on merits.
So the fact remains that the amount deposited in the Jaipur Registry continues to be under dispute.
This is my personal view.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
