In contempt proceedings alleging wrongful billing for costs paid to respondents, the court dismissed the petition because the respondents' affidavit denying the allegation remained untraversed, deeming it inexpedient to pursue contempt jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.65 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.60 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2242 OF 2001
Vishal Parekh
Vs. Maker Tower ‘H’ CHS Ltd. and others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Q.M. Ashfaq for the Petitioner.
Mr. R. Dhanuka with Ms Vaishali Chaudhari i/b A.R. Dhanuka for the Respondents.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 3rd November, 2009.
P.C. :
has been argued is that by the order dated 25th January, 2006 passed
by a Learned Single Judge of this Court (Exhibit E to the Petition) costs of Rs.25,000/- were directed to be paid to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to those proceedings in equal proportion. The grievance is that
though the costs were paid, the amount paid towards costs was billed
by the co-operative society to the Petitioner.
2
been debited.
made in the affidavit in reply, it is not expedient in the
3
interests of justice to pursue the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction.
No other point has been urged. The Contempt Petition is accordingly
dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be pursued given the untraversed affidavit in reply stating that no costs were debited.
Whether the grievance regarding billing could be pursued in contempt jurisdiction.
Vishal Parekh
Maker Tower ‘H’ CHS Ltd.
others
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
