Disposed

smt roopa bahirwni and Ors. v. smt hema g. anand and secretary anju co-op soc and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2006SCN/168/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of show cause notices. Against defendant for contempt of court, imposed one day civil imprisonment instead of absolute discharge. Against subsequent purchasers, show cause notice discharged as suit settled and they tendered apology. Suit disposed of based on consent and full settlement.

What did the court decide?

Defendant sentenced to 1 day civil imprisonment. Show cause notice discharged against respondents 2, 3, 4. Suit disposed of on consent terms.

smt roopa bahirwni and Ors. Vs smt hema g. anand and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.168 OF 2006
 IN
 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2127 OF 2003
 IN
 SUIT NO.2509 OF 1988

¶5

 Smt.Roopa Bahirwani and Ors. ..Plaintiffs

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Smt.Hema G.Anan ..Defendant
 And

¶8

 Secretary, Anju Co-op.Housing
 Society Ltd.and Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

 Mr.B.R.Matta for the plaintiffs

¶10

 Mr.Kedar Dighe a/w Mr.Vishal Khanawkar for the
 defendant

¶11

 Ms.Merlyn Monterio for the respondent no.2

¶12

 Mr.Rajendra R.Mishra for respondent nos.3 and 4

¶13

 CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 1. The present show cause notice has been
 issued on the basis that the defendant has

¶16

¶17

 committed a breach of the injunction order
 dt.15.10.90 passed in Notice of Motion no.215 of
 1998. There is no dispute in the present case that
 there has been a breach and / or violation of the
 injunction order namely not to transfer or sell or
 dispose of the suit flat.

¶18

 2. The defendant has in breach of the said
 order transferred the suit flat and respondent
 no.2, 3 and 4 are the subsequent purchasers
 thereof. The present respondent nos. 3 and 4 are
 residing in the suit flat. In view of the fact
 that the suit itself is settled between the parties
 and the defendant and the respondents and in view
 of the unconditional apology tendered by respondent
 nos.3 and 4, I am of the opinion that the present
 show cause notice should not be proceeded further.
 Interim orders, if any stands vacated. In the
 light of the aforesaid, show cause notice as
 against respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 is discharged.

¶19

 3. In so far as the defendant s is concerned,
 there is no dispute that the defendant is guilty of
 breach of the said injunction order and has

¶20

¶21

 disposed off the flat in contravention of the order

¶22

 dt.15.10.90 passed by this court. However, the
 learned counsel for the defendant has submitted an
 unconditional apology. He further submits that the
 defendant who is a lady and of an advanced age
 should be given a sympathetic consideration and
 therefore this court should not take any action for
 any penalty for contempt of court. He also further
 submits that suit having been settled amicably
 between the parties, the court must show indulgence
 in so far as the defendant is concerned.

¶23

 4. Pursuant to the suggestion, the defendant
 has deposited a sum of Rs.50000 towards the cost
 with the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority and
 the receipt has been produced. In so far as
 penalty to the defendant is concerned, I am of the
 opinion that looking at the old age of the
 defendant and her ill health and further in view of
 the submitting of unconditional apology to this
 court, I must take a lenient view in the matter.
 However, the lenient view in the matter, cannot
 mean absolute discharge of the defendant who has
 admittedly committed breach of the interim order

¶24

¶25

 passed by this court. But keeping in mind the

¶26

 aforesaid facts, I sentence the defendant to the

¶27

 Civil imprisonment of one day till the rising of

¶28

 the court today. I further direct the defendant to
 sit in the office of the Prothonotary and Senior
 Master, High Court, Mumbai for a day i.e. till 5
 p.m. towards undergoing the punishment of civil
 imprisonment of one day which has been levied on
 the defendant. Show Cause Notice disposed of
 accordingly as against the defendant also.

¶29

¶30

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶31

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶32

 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.168 OF 2006
 IN
 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2127 OF 2003
 IN
 SUIT NO.2509 OF 1988

¶33

 Smt.Roopa Bahirwani and Ors. ..Plaintiffs

¶34

Vs.

¶35

 Smt.Hema G.Anan ..Defendant
 And

¶36

 Secretary, Anju Co-op.Housing
 Society Ltd.and Ors. ..Respondents

¶37

 Mr.B.R.Matta for the plaintiffs

¶38

 Mr.Kedar Dighe a/w Mr.Vishal Khanawkar for the
 defendant

¶39

 Ms.Merlyn Monterio for the respondent no.2

¶40

 Mr.Rajendra R.Mishra for respondent nos.3 and 4

¶41

 CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006
 P.C.:

¶42

 . By consent of the parties, the following
 order is passed:

¶43

¶44

 . Suit is disposed of in terms of the consent

¶45

 terms entered into between the plaintiff and
 respondent no.3 and 4. The defendant has no
 objection to the said consent terms. The learned
 counsel for the defendant submits that he has no

¶46

 objection to the plaintiffs withdrawing the amount
 of Rs.30000 deposited by her pursuant to the
 appellate court order with accrued interest if any.
 The plaintiffs will be at liberty to withdraw the
 said amount. The plaintiffs have also received
 over and above the same, a sum of Rs.30000 from the
 respondent nos.3 and 4 and he accepts the same in
 respect of full and final settlement of all his

¶47

 claims in the suit. Suit disposed of accordingly.

smt roopa bahirwni and Ors. v. smt hema g. anand and secretary anju co-op soc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

smt roopa bahirwni and Ors. v. smt hema g. anand and secretary anju co-op soc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Apeego Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corpn. and 2 Ors.

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Vs M/S. Institute for Design of Electrical Measurement Instruments

Mohd. Ramzan Abdulla Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pratap M. Sanghvi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Air India Staff Colony Association and Anr. Vs Kamal Madanpotra and Ors.

M/S.Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd.and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn.of Greater Mumbai and Ors.