Application filed to restore a dismissed contempt petition where the respondent avoided service of notice. The court condoned the delay and restored the contempt petition.
Contempt petition restored.
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 APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2010 IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.363 OF 2006
M/s. Lake View Developers v.
Vilas R. Pawar
...Applicant.
...Respondent.
Mr. S.D.Mogre, adv., for the Applicant.
CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2010
P.C.:
1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the
record. It appears that in contempt petition no.363 of 2006, respondent had appeared through Mr. G.N.Salunke, who has also filed vakalatnama and this was noted in the order dated 8th January, 2008.
It appears that thereafter also on some dates, Mr.Salunke, advocate for the respondents was present. However, on 14.2.2008, there appears an order to issue notice to the respondents returnable six weeks though presence of his advocate is also noted. It appears that thereafter respondent was avoiding service as explained in the present application. Therefore, delay is condoned and contempt petition is hereby restored.
2
2 Application stands disposed off.
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
M/s. Lake View Developers
Vilas R. Pawar
J.H.Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
