Patna High Court
Kanhaiya PandeyversusThe State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Mr. P. K. Thakur, Department Govt. Of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
No contempt was found as the petitioner had received an amount exceeding his entitlement.
Summary
Kanhaiya Pandey filed a contempt petition against the State of Bihar and Allahabad Bank, alleging the bank willfully disobeyed an order dated 06‑07‑2017 in CWJC No.8440 of 2015. The bank submitted a show‑cause reply, which the petitioner did not contest. The court observed that the petitioner had already been paid an amount exceeding his entitlement, thereby negating any claim of non‑compliance. Consequently, the court held that no contempt had been committed. The petition was therefore disposed of without any contempt finding.
Issues considered
- Did the Allahabad Bank willfully disobey the order dated 06‑07‑2017 in CWJC No.8440 of 2015?
- Is the petitioner entitled to contempt relief given the payment made?
Subjects
- contempt of court
- civil writ jurisdiction
- bank compliance
- order enforcement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3530 of 2017
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8440 of 2015
======================================================
Kanhaiya Pandey son of Late Radha Mohan Pandey, resident of Village and
P.O.- Barka, Rajpur, P.S.- Simri, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Mr. P. K. Thakur,
Department Govt. Of Bihar,
2. Mr. S.K. Sinha, the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Simri Branch
District- Buxar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3
For the Bank : Dr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Devendra Pd., Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 25-06-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present contempt petition has been preferred for
the following relief(s):
“for issuance of contempt against the
contemnor no. 2 for willful disobedience of the order
dated 06.07.2017 passed in CWJC No. 8440 of
2015.”
3. In view of the show-cause reply filed by the Bank,
which has not been disputed by the petitioner, and considering that
the petitioner has been paid an amount exceeding what he was
entitled to receive, no case of contempt is made out.
4. MJC No. 3530 of 2017 stands disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.