Dismissed

Mrs. Leela Bhagwansingh Advani and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2009CONPW/3/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a contempt petition where respondents provided a solemn assurance to comply with a prior Division Bench order by paying compensation within two months. Finding no case for contempt proceedings since the action was quashed and compliance assured, the notice was discharged and the petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to respondents discharged; petition disposed of; no further action under contempt provisions.

Mrs. Leela Bhagwansingh Advani and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1603 OF 1996

¶4

Leela Bhagwansingh Advani & Ors.

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Union of India & Anr.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the petitioners. Mr.G.N.Srinivasan a/w Mr.G.Hariharan i/by Dr.T.C.Kaushik for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶10

Mrs.Gita Kashyap Perti,D.E.O present.

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16^th December 2009.

¶12

P.C:

¶13

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st to 3^rd respondents. Notice before admission was issued on 22^nd October 2008. By the said order, this contempt petition was ordered to be heard alongwith Writ Petition No.1855 of 2001. Now it is pointed out that the said writ petition has been already disposed of by the judgment and order dated 17^th June 2009.

¶14

The allegation made in the petition is that in defiance of the judgment and order dated 25^th July 1997 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Notice of Motion No.101 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.1733 of 1994, an action was taken by of the respondents in respect of a similarly situated property under section 48(1)

¶15

¶16

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Paragraph 28 of the petition reads thus:

¶17

“28. The aforesaid two circumstances, viz.:-

¶18

A] Repeating the very same contention, that the rate which has been given in the Award dated 30^th May 1995 is exorbitant, and on the basis of that, passing the order under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶19

B] Despite the fact, that this Hon’ble Court has held that once the respondent, are in possession of the property by virtue of the lease deed dated 24^th November 1943 there is no question of taking further possession and therefore the provisions of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, being not available to the respondent herein to withdraw from the acquisition having been confirmed, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that despite the aforesaid two proposition clearly laid down, again the very same respondent in respect of the very same Award are blatantly using the saame very specious ground for the purpose of defeating the legitimate right and the claim of the petitioners herein, in getting their due compensation by the Award dated 30^th May 1995 which was declared almost 50 years after they voluntarily gave their property for the defence of Bombay City for the second world war.”

¶20

It must be stated here that the order passed by the concerned respondents under section 48(1) of the said Act which is complained of in this petition was challenged by the petitioners by filing a Writ Petition No.1855 of 2001. By judgment and order dated 17^th June 2009, the said petition has been made absolute and the order passed under section 48(1) of the said Act has been quashed and set aside. The Division Bench directed the concerned respondents to make payment of compensation to the petitioners in terms of award dated 30^th May 1995 within a period of three months together with interest in accordance with law. The order of the Division Bench remained stayed for a period of two months i.e up to 16^th August 2009. A Special Leave Petition filed by the concerned respondents for challenging the said order has been dismissed on 5^th

¶21

¶22

October 2009.

¶23

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the findings recorded by the Division Bench in the said judgment and order dated 17^th June 2009 substantiates the stand taken by the petitioners that the concerned respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of Division Bench dated 25^th July 1997 which relates to a similarly situated property. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench in the case of Legrand (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. Union of India [2007 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal 147].

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st to 3^rd respondents on instructions of one Smt.Geeta Kashyap Perti, Defence Estates Officer, Mumbai Circle, Mumbai states that the concerned respondents will comply with the order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1855 of 2001 by paying requisite compensation to the petitioners within a period of two months from today. Statement is accepted.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioners was that an action under section 48(1) of the said Act was sought to be taken by the concerned respondents in breach of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 25^th July 1997. A writ petition was filed by the petitioners for challenging the said action under section 48(1) of the said Act. As pointed out earlier, the petitioners have succeeded in their writ petition and the order under section 48(1) of the said Act has been set aside. Now there is a solemn assurance given to this

¶26

¶27

Court that compensation together with interest in terms of judgment and order dated 17^th June 2009 will be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from today.

¶28

Considering the aforesaid solemn statement made across the Bar and considering the fact that now the action under section 48(1) of the said Act has been quashed and set aside, at this stage, no case is made out for proceeding further against the respondents either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Hence, the notice issued to the respondents is discharged and subject to what is observed above, petition is disposed of.

Mrs. Leela Bhagwansingh Advani and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Leela Bhagwansingh Advani and 2 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarabai Bhausaheb Deokar Vs Jaywant Mahepati Balwadkar and Ors.

1. Rakhamabai Kondiiba Lashakaaree and Ors. Vs 1. Damodar Shripad Vahul and Ors.

Abdul Hameed Mohd. Ishaq Khan Vs Mehmood Jainuddin Mujawar and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manohar Vasudeo Sapre and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manohar Vasudeo Sapre and Ors.

R.K.Doshi Vs the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors.