The Benches of the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal in a contempt petition, agreeing with the Single Judge that no contempt was committed by the respondent. The matter was disposed of without granting leave for an application regarding the pending suit's expeditious hearing.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.372 OF 2009 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.89 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.348 OF 1994 IN SUIT NO.352 OF 1994
Metaoxide Private Limited V/s.
Hill Properties Limited and others.
... Appellant
... Respondents
Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil D'Souza, Mr. Siddhesh Bhole and Mr. Suprabh Jain i/by Mr. Anil D'Souza for the appellant.
Mr. Birendra Saraf i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the respondent No. 3.
CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, CHIEF JUSTICE & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATED : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2010
P.C.
We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and we also do not find any contempt being committed by respondent No.3.
is pending since long. It would be open to the learned Single Judge to consider an application, if made by the learned advocate, for expeditious
hearing of the suit and in that event, the learned Single Judge shall
consider the same.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Metaoxide Private Limited
Hill Properties Limited
ANIL R. DAVE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
