Facts
The deceased employee, Ravindra Ghodke, had successfully challenged the compulsory-retirement notice in W.P. No. 16922/2016; on 25 April 2024, the High Court quashed the notice and held him entitled to consequential benefits.
Source reference: p. 3His legal representatives initiated contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of that order.
Source reference: p. 3During the contempt proceedings, the parties filed a joint memo recording a settlement under which Mysore Paper Mills Limited agreed to pay the complainants ₹65,00,000 by 26 September 2026 in full and final settlement of the specified claims.
Source reference: pp. 4–6Issues
Whether the accused had wilfully disobeyed the High Court’s order dated 25 April 2024.
Source reference: p. 3Whether the joint settlement could be accepted and the contempt petition consigned, while preserving the complainants’ liberty to revive it if payment was not made by the agreed date.
Source reference: pp. 6–7Law Applied
The petition was brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Source reference: p. 2The order under enforcement had quashed the compulsory-retirement notice and granted entitlement to consequential benefits.
Source reference: p. 3The Court did not set out or apply a substantive test for civil contempt, cite precedent, or determine whether the alleged disobedience was wilful; it disposed of the petition on the basis of the parties’ settlement.
Source reference: pp. 6–7Reasoning
The Court noted the compliance affidavit and the parties’ joint memo, including the agreed payment of ₹65,00,000 by 26 September 2026 in full and final settlement of the identified employment-related claims.
Source reference: pp. 3–6Having noted that the signatures had been identified by counsel, it accepted the settlement rather than adjudicating the contempt allegation on its merits.
Source reference: p. 7The Court expressly preserved the complainants’ liberty to revive the petition if the payment was not made by the deadline.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The joint memo was accepted and the contempt petition was consigned accordingly.
The complainants were granted liberty to revive the contempt proceedings if the agreed amount was not credited on or before 26 September 2026.
Source reference: p. 7The Court made no finding on whether contempt had been committed.
Source reference: no citationActs & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Contempt of Courts Act, 19712
Original Court PDF
SMT SUMAN RAVINDRA GHODKEvsSRI GURUDATTA HEGADE, IAS,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
