Wilful Disobedience - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

20Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case

The Supreme Court held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for wilfully disobeying its 1996 order prohibiting tree felling in the Delhi Ridge and for concealing this action from the court. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines the Rule of Law, necessitating remedial measures to purge the contempt. Facts Of The Case: This contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India stems from the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) alleged wilful disobedience of the Court's 1996 order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which mandated the preservation of the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge. The DDA sought approval for constructing approach roads to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), entailin...