Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

the case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the court were not paid to the petitioner -there was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - the petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under sections 2 (b) of the contempt of courts act, 1971 for the same - the petitioner acted as a life insurance corporation agent undertaking tuitions - it was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the court by the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

s.k. mahajan, j.1. despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.2. by judgment dated 16th august, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the court respondent no. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th july, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent no. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. the payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.3. the case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

S.K. Mahajan, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Petition dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '708511',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Non',
			'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Delhi',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '708511',
		(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs Indraj Yadav and ors - Citation 708511 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '708511',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'The case debated whether there was deliberate or willful violation of the Court's order wherein all consequential benefits as ordered by the Court were not paid to the petitioner -There was a non compliance with the direction to pay all the consequential benefits as regards pay and allowance subject to the petitioner who was not gainfully employed anywhere - The petitioner filed for initiation of contempt proceedings under Sections 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the same - The petitioner acted as a Life Insurance Corporation agent undertaking tuitions - It was held that since the condition precedent for grant of pay and allowances should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, there was no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.<br> -  -  The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Non',
		'counseldef' => ' Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Delhi',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-01-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.K. Mahajan, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.</p><p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.</p><p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.</p><p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.</p><p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.</p><p>5. Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'indraj Yadav and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Service',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '708511',
	(int) 1 => 'anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/708511/anand-dev-tyagi-vs-indraj-yadav-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Mahajan, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Despite the case having been passed over once, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. By judgment dated 16th August, 1996 while disposing of the writ petition, the Court respondent No. 4 not to treat the petitioner under suspension on and from 25th July, 1994 and as a consequent thereto further direction was given to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner as regards pay and allowances subject, of course, to the petitioner satisfying respondent No. 4 during that period he was not gainfully employed. The payment was not made by respondents to the petitioner which resulted in the petitioner filing the present petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The case of the respondents in reply is that in terms of undated letter received by the respondents on 10th September, 1996 the petitioner has himself admitted that he was helping his wife with tuitions from September, 1994 onwards and at the relevant time there was about six students to whom he was teaching. Nothing is stated in this letter as to what was the amount of tuition fee being received by him from the students. It is also alleged in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner was acting as a Life Insurance Corporation agent with number 62278-111. Certain policies of insurance have also been mentioned in the reply which were taken by the insured from the Insurance Company in respect of which petitioner had acted as agent. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied that he was working as an insurance agent and that he was undertaking tuitions as well. Since the condition precedent for the grant of pay and allowances that the petitioner should not be gainfully employed was not satisfied by him, in my view, there is no deliberate or willful violation of the order of the Court by the respondents.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. There are no merits in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Contempt of Court;Service
Court	Delhi High Court
Decided On	Jan-31-2001
Case Number	C.C.P. No. 211 of 1997
Judge	S.K. Mahajan, J.
Reported in	2001VAD(Delhi)245; 90(2001)DLT496
Appellant	Anand Dev Tyagi
Respondent	indraj Yadav and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Non
Respondent Advocate	Vaishalee Mehra, Adv.
Disposition	Petition dismissed

Anand Dev Tyagi Vs. Indraj Yadav and ors. - Court Judgment