NONREPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION MISC.APPLICATIONNo.1712of2018 WITH INTERLOCUTORYAPPLICATIONNO.38501/2018 IN MISC.APPLICATIONNo.711of2017 IN CIVILAPPEALNo.4482OF1998 RajeshwarMahto .Appellant(s) VERSUS AlokKumarGupta,G.M. M/sBirlaCorporationLtd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT AbhayManoharSapre,J. 1. We heard Mr. Rajeshwar Mahto applicant/appellant appearedin person and also heard Ms. N.Annapoorani, learned counsel appointed by Supreme Court Legal services 1 Committee to assist the applicant in support of his applications. 2. These two aforementioned applications arise out of Civil Appeal No. 4482 of 1998 and M.A. No. 711/2017 decided by this Courts detailed order dated23.02.2018. 3. Bydetailedorderdated23.02.2018,thisCourt disposed of Misc. Application No. 711/2017 and Contempt Petition No.785/2018 in C.A. No.4482 of 1998andgaverelieftotheapplicantwhichreadsas under: 27. On applicants vacating the quarter within the time fixed by this Court, the Corporation will accordingly pay to the applicant Rs.7,50,000/ by demand draft within one week from the date of vacating thequarter. 28. With these directions, the contempt petition stands disposed of. Rule Nisi, if issued, stands discharged against the alleged contemnor. 2 4. Now it appears that the applicant is not satisfied with the grant of the aforesaid monetary relieftohimand,therefore,heha
NONREPORTABLE INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION MISC.APPLICATIONNo.1712of2018 WITH INTERLOCUTORYAPPLICATIONNO.38501/2018 IN MISC.APPLICATIONNo.711of2017 IN CIVILAPPEALNo.4482OF1998 RajeshwarMahto .Appellant(s) VERSUS AlokKumarGupta,G.M. M/sBirlaCorporationLtd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT AbhayManoharSapre,J. 1. We heard Mr. Rajeshwar Mahto applicant/appellant appearedin person and also heard Ms. N.Annapoorani, learned counsel appointed by Supreme Court Legal services 1 Committee to assist the applicant in support of his applications. 2. These two aforementioned applications arise out of Civil Appeal No. 4482 of 1998 and M.A. No. 711/2017 decided by this Courts detailed order dated23.02.2018. 3. Bydetailedorderdated23.02.2018,thisCourt disposed of Misc. Application No. 711/2017 and Contempt Petition No.785/2018 in C.A. No.4482 of 1998andgaverelieftotheapplicantwhichreadsas under: 27. On applicants vacating the quarter within the time fixed by this Court, the Corporation will accordingly pay to the applicant Rs.7,50,000/ by demand draft within one week from the date of vacating thequarter. 28. With these directions, the contempt petition stands disposed of. Rule Nisi, if issued, stands discharged against the alleged contemnor. 2 4. Now it appears that the applicant is not satisfied with the grant of the aforesaid monetary relieftohimand,therefore,hehasagainfiledthese applications. 5. Insubstance,theapplicantwantsmoremoney than what was awarded to him by this Courts orderdated23.02.2018.Fromhisoralsubmissions, whatwecouldgatheristhathenowclaimstowards his salary etc. more than one crore or so whereas we have awarded to him Rs.7,50,000/ in full and finalsatisfactionofhistotalserviceclaim. 6. He had also filed application for modification againsttheorderdated23.02.2018. 7. We have perused the applications carefully with a view to find out as to whether our order dated 23.02.2018 requires any further modification 3 so as to grant to the applicant more than what we havegrantedalready(Rs.7,50,000/). 8. Having perused, we find ourselves unable to accept the applicants prayer made in these applications and also in his submissions. In our opinion, the prayer made by the applicant has no factualandlegalbasis. 9. The order dated 23.02.2018 is quite a reasoned order wherein this Court has taken into considerationtheentirefactualandlegalaspectsof the case, all previous orders passed in the main case out of which the contempt petition arose, the effectandconsequencesoftheorderspassedinthe matters, applicants monthly emoluments, his length of service period, and all his other legal entitlementspayableundervariousheadsandthen worked out the final figure of Rs.7,50,000/ for beingpaidtohimbyhisemployer. 4 10. There is no error much less apparent error in theorderdated23.02.2018whichmaypersuadeus tofurthermodifyandawardmoremoneythanwhat wasawardedtotheapplicant.Theapplicanthasto benowsatisfiedwiththeorderdated23.02.2018. 11. Theapplicant,inhissubmission,mainlyurged one issue that he needs money for the marriage of his daughter. If that be the position then the amount of Rs.7,50,000/ can be used by him for performingthemarriageofhisdaughter. 12. Withtheseobservations,theapplicationsmade by the applicant and which are listed today are dismissed. 5 13. We finally grant three months time to the applicant to vacate the quarter, which he has still continued to occupy, and accept the amount of Rs.7,50,000/ from his employer (respondents herein)intermsoftheorderdated23.02.2018. ..J. (ABHAYMANOHARSAPRE) ....J. (MOHANM.SHANTANAGOUDAR) NewDelhi, September24,2018 6
Show less
Create annotations and case research papers through full feature set along with access to entire Supreme Court Judgements database. Sign up Now!
Diary Number 9947 / 2018
Case Number MA-001712 / 2018
Judgment Date 24-09-2018
Bench HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON