keyboard_arrow_up

RAJESHWAR MAHTO vs ALOK KUMAR GUPTA G.M. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. On 2018-09-24

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

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
Join Us

Create annotations and case research papers through full feature set along with access to entire Supreme Court Judgements database. Sign up Now!

Judgement Profile

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

CITED KEYWORDS