NARINDER SINGH Vs. UCO BANK
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-34
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 18,1997

NARINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
UCO BANK Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

4. CHHAGANBHAI NORSINBHAI V. SONI CHANDUBHAI GORDHANBHAI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPABEN VS. NARANDAS V BADIANI [REFERRED TO]
SALEEMUDDIN VS. SHARAFUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
LAJUKLATA VS. NRISHINGHA PROSAD [REFERRED TO]
VIROCHAN VS. RAM SARAN DASS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)The first respondent herein filed civil suit No. 29 of 1989 against the appellant and proforma respondents No.2 and 3. In that suit an application was moved under Order 3 8 Rule 5 read with Order 39 Rules 1,2 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the attachment and sale of the hypothecated truck. The appellant herein gave an undertaking in that I application on 8th May, 1990, that he would deposit regularly a sum of Rs. 4000/ - per month from July 1990 onwards. The undertaking was recorded and accepted by the court on 8th May, 1990 pursuant to which the vehicle was released and given to the appellant The appellant paid seven instalments in full and one instalment in part to the extent of Rs. 2725/ -. The last instalment was paid by him only on 30th March, 1992. But even before that, the first respondent filed an application in this Court on 5th August, 1991 to punish the appellant for contempt as he has committed breach of the undertaking given by him.
(2.)When the appellant filed a reply in the application for contempt he had only stated that he could not make the deposit as undertook by him for bona fide reasons and he had prayed ultimately that unqualified apology submitted by him should be accepted and he should be permitted to make good the default by paying Rs. 8000/ - per months instead of Rs. 4000/ - per month till the default is cleared and thereafter he may be permitted to deposit Rs. 4000/ - per month as per his undertaking.
(3.)On 3rd December 1992, an order was passed by this Court that the appellant should go on paying the amount in accordance with the undertaking dated 8th May, 1990 and with regard to the prior defaults, they should be cleared by 31st August, 1993 and the matter was posted to 3rd September, 1993. On that date learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment to find out whether there was compliance of the earlier order. The adjournment was granted and the matter was posted to 5th November, 1993. On that date the court recorded that several opportunities were given to the appellant to deposit the defaulted instalments as per his undertaking but he failed to comply with the same. The counsel prayed for one more opportunity and the same was granted by the court. The matter was posted to 10th December, 1993, on which date the court passed an order adjourning the matter to 17th December, 1993, giving last chance to comply with the undertaking given to the court. On 17th December, 1993, the counsel prayed for further chance and the matter was adjourned to 24th December, 1993. On that date learned counsel for the appellant reported that he had not received any instructions from the appellant and he was totally helpless in the matter. Thereafter, the court proceeded to look into the records and came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of wilful disobedience of the undertaking given by him to the court. Consequently, the court passed a sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of Rs. 2000/ -. It is the said order which is challenged in this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.