Disposed

sarvesh laxmandas agarwal v. prakash jayantilal mehta

Bombay HC4 Sept 2007CONP/42/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a contempt petition alleging breach of an order restraining the respondent from disposing of immovable property. Although the court found the order violated and convicted the respondent, it imposed no sentence due to an unconditional apology and the amicable settlement of the main suit.

What did the court decide?

No sentence imposed; contempt proceedings closed on unconditional apology and settlement of main matter.

sarvesh laxmandas agarwal Vs prakash jayantilal mehta — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

rpa

¶2

 :: 1 ::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDIANARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.42 OF 2007

¶6

IN

¶7

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1613 OF 2003

¶8

IN

¶9

 SUIT NO.1542 OF 2003

¶10

 Sarvesh L.Agarwal .. Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶11

 Prakash Jayantilal Mehta .. Respondent

¶12

 Mr.R.D.Dave i/b. N.N.Vaishnave for petitioner. .
 Mr.T.N.Subramaniyam i/b.Vimadalal & Co. for respondent.

¶13

CORAM:-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶14

DATED:- 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C.

¶15

 1. The contempt petition was filed alleging breach
 and violation of order passed by this Court restraining
 the respondent/original defendant no.2/ contemnor from
 alienating, encumbering, transfering and disposing of
 in any manner the flat/immovable property more
 particularly described in the order of this Court.

¶16

 2. When this contempt petition was placed before
 me for admission, Mr. Dave appearing for the

¶17

 :: 2 ::

¶18

 petitioner states that the petitioner/original
 plaintiff and the parties to the suit including
 respondent herein have amicably resolved and settled
 their disputes and claims. Under such circumstances,
 he prayed that appropriate orders be passed by this
 Court.

¶19

 3. This is a contempt petition and there is clear
 case of violation and breach of the Courts order. It
 is well settled that the out come of the main
 litigation/proceeding need not influence the hearing of
 contempt petition. That matter has to be independently
 decided. Accordingly, I called upon the advocates
 appearing for the respondent to satisfy me with regard
 to the allegations and the averments in the contempt
 petition.

¶20

 4. Today Mr.Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel
 appearing for the respondent tendered unconditional
 apology in writing to this Court. He submits that the
 flat has been disposed of. However, considering that
 the parties have amicably settled the matter and were
 desirous of resolving the dispute so also the
 settlement contemplates payment of certain sums, the
 flat/immovable property has been dealt with and
 disposed of.

¶21

 :: 3 ::

¶22

 5. He submits that the respondent/ contemnor is

¶23

 present in the court. He does not deny the charges
 against him. However, since an unconditional apology
 has been tendered and the main matter is settled, a
 lenient view may be taken.

¶24

 6. Having perused the contempt petition and the
 order of this Court so also the affidavit, to my mind,
 there is absolutely no dispute that the order has been
 violated. The charges are not even denied or disputed.
 However, while convicting the respondent of contempt of
 this Court as he has deliberately and wilfully voilated
 the interim order of this court, I am not imposing any
 sentence in the light of the subsequent development.
 Since the matter has been resolved by the parties,
 despite conviction, I impose no sentence and by
 accepting the unconditional apology tendered to this
 Court close the contempt proceedings. The contempt
 petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

sarvesh laxmandas agarwal v. prakash jayantilal mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sarvesh laxmandas agarwal v. prakash jayantilal mehta

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

Sambha Dhondi Jorwar (Patil) and Anr. Vs Narayan Dhondi Jorwar and Ors.

M/S. Bhagwandas Agencies Vs National Textiles Corpn. Ltd. New Delhi and Anr.

Union of India Vs M/S. Arora Associates

Zenith Computers Ltd. Vs M/S. Kamal and Co.

neeta vasant khimshia and 2 Ors. Vs prakash jayantilal mehta

Global (Ind) Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs mv. Abouzar 81 and Anr.