Dismissed

Umar Kasam Memon and Ors. v. Mr. Nitin Karir Pune Minicipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2007CP/28/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a contempt petition alleging breach of an earlier court order. The Court found no specific allegation of breach by the respondents and held that the notice issued to them should be discharged, allowing the petition to be disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to respondents discharged and contempt petition disposed of.

Umar Kasam Memon and Ors. Vs Mr. Nitin Karir Pune Minicipal… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

MST

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.28 OF 2007
 IN
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1151 OF 2006
 IN
 SECOND APPEAL NO.743 OF 2006

¶4

 Umar Kasam Memon and others Petitioners
 versus
 Nitin Karir, Pune Municipal
 Corporation, Pune and others Respondents

¶5

 Mr.V.A.Shetty for petitioners.
 Mr.V.G.Mujumdar for respondents 1 to 3.

¶6

 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.
 DATE : 28th March 2007

¶7

 PC :

¶8

 1. Heard advocate for the petitioners. The
 contempt alleged is of order dated 31st July 2006
 passed by this Court. The relevant part of the
 said order reads thus :-

¶9

 "3. Till further orders the Respondents
 are restrained from carrying out any
 further construction on the suit
 property. However, this injunction will
 not prevent the Respondents from carrying
 out maintenance work and/or repairs to
 the drainage line which is already
 installed."

¶10

 2. In paragraph no.12 of this petition it is

¶11

 ((-2-))
 MST

¶12

 alleged that M/s.Golden Constructions started
 work in contravention of the order dated 31st
 July 2006 passed by this Court. There is no
 specific allegation against the respondents
 herein to the effect that they have carried out
 any work on the suit property in breach of the
 order passed by this Court.

¶13

 3. Learned advocate appearing for the

¶14

 petitioners submits that the respondents herein
 should have prevented M/s.Golden Constructions
 from carrying on the work. Even assuming that
 the respondents have not prevented M/s.Golden
 Constructions from carrying out the work, it
 cannot be said that there is a deliberate or
 wilful breach of the order dated 31st August 2006
 passed by this Court on the part of the
 respondents herein.

¶15

 4. Hence, notice issued to the respondents is
 discharged. Contempt Petition is disposed of.

¶16

 5. Nothing stated in this order will prevent the
 petitioners from taking out appropriate
 proceedings on the basis of order dated 31st July
 2006 passed by this Court.

¶17

 ((-3-))

¶18

MST

¶19

 (A.S.OKA, J.)

Umar Kasam Memon and Ors. v. Mr. Nitin Karir Pune Minicipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umar Kasam Memon and Ors. v. Mr. Nitin Karir Pune Minicipal Corporation 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

Shri Anil Krishna Zunjurwad and Anr. Vs Smt. Indumati Harish Borse

Arjun Baburao Ekke Vs Mohemmed Salim Abdul Karim Sheikh

Vasant R.Purohit Vs Rajesh @ Gautam K.Bhosale

Rayagiri Ratgiri Gosavi Vs Shrikant R. Urunkar and Others.

Bapu Shantaran Jangale Vs M/S. Popular Car Bazaar and Ors.

M/S. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Rameshchandra Biyani and Anr. .