Single judge dismissed the contempt petition, holding it was thoroughly misconceived as the writ petition had been withdrawn, leaving no operative direction to contravene.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.95 OF 2009 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.147 OF 2007
Firoza Maksud Rizvi. ...Petitioner.
Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors.
...Respondents.
None for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
October 14, 2009 .
P.C.
The order of the Division Bench dated 18th June 2007
records that the Writ Petition was being withdrawn in view of the agreement dated 17th October 2006 entered into between Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Since the Writ Petition was withdrawn, there was no
operative direction of the Division Bench as such. The Contempt Petition is thoroughly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Firoza Maksud Rizvi
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
