NOMAN HAFEEZ and others vs MANAGER SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE
This contempt petition arose from a previous order of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 716 of 2001, which had directed the respondents to settle accounts with the petitioner in accordance with the principles established by the Supreme Court in Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashmi and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 225). The petitioner alleged non-compliance with this directive. In response, the respondents filed comments asserting that they had refrained from taking coercive measures against the petitioner and that the petitioner had failed to approach them within the stipulated timeframe to facilitate the rendition of accounts. Furthermore, the respondents expressed their continued readiness to settle the accounts. The Court evaluated the explanation provided by the respondents and found it satisfactory, concluding that there was no willful violation of its previous order. Consequently, the Court determined that proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act were unwarranted. The petition was dismissed as misconceived, and the previously issued notice to the respondent was discharged.
- Does a failure to approach the respondent for the rendition of accounts within a stipulated period constitute a violation of a court order?
- Is the initiation of contempt proceedings justified when the respondent demonstrates a willingness to comply with the court's prior directions?
- What constitutes a sufficient explanation to avoid contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with a court's directive?
- Section 3, Contempt of Court Act 1976
- Section 4, Contempt of Court Act 1976
ORDER
' A Writ Petition No,716 of 2001 titled as "Noman Hafeez v. Small Business Finance Corporation Branch, through its Manager, Rahimayar Khan" had been filed which was disposed of by this Court on IS-2-2001 with the direction to the respondents to decide the matter In accordance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court, referred In case of Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashmi and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 225), for the rendition of accounts.
2. Comments from the respondents have been received, wherein it is stated that in accordance with the order of this Court, the respondents have not adopted coercive measures against the petitioner and he has not approached them within stipulated period, therefore, the statement of rendition of accounts could not be made with the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondents have not violated the orders of the Court, even now, they are ready to make the rendition of accounts with the petitioner. The explanation given by the respondents is sufficient to satisfy the Court that the order of this Court has not been violated, thus, there is no need to further proceed against the respondents under section 3/4 of Contempt of Court Act, therefore, this petition being misconceived is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondent shall stand discharged. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.