Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging illegal sale of premises despite court orders restraining transfer. The court found that the parties had executed a memorandum of understanding surrendering the petitioner's rights, which was suppressed from the court. The petition was dismissed.
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 7.conp-54-08
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
jmi
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2008
IN
SUIT NO. 3320 OF 2006.
Husain Taherali Changi.
..Petitioner.
vs.
Muzaffar Fakhruddin Tinwala & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr. Shamim, i/b. Shamim & Co., for Petitioner. Mr. Muzaffar Fakhruddin Tinwala, Respondent No. 1, present. Mrs. Shaheeda Muzaffar Tinwala, Respondent No. 2, present. Mr. A.H.Khatri, for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 16TH DECEMBER 2011.
P.C. :
The Petitioner has filed the above Contempt Petition alleging that the Respondents have committed contempt of orders passed by this Court dated 19th October 2006 and 22nd November 2006 restraining the Respondent No. 1 from selling and/or transferring the premises to any third party. It is alleged by the Petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have now illegally sold and transferred the said premises to one Mr. Murtuza Arsiwala, Respondent No.3 and the said Arsiwala who is the third party is presently in possession of the Suit premises.
2 7.conp-54-08
23rd July 2007, the Petitioner and the Respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), whereby the Petitioner and the Respondents agreed and decided to settle their dispute. Under the said MOU, the Petitioner relinquished all his rights, title, interest and possession in favour of the Respondent No.1. Under the MOU, it was also agreed that the Petitioner shall withdraw the Suit filed in the High Court being No. 3320 of 2006 and the Suit filed before the City Civil Court being No.2211 of 2006. The Respondent No. 1 has further stated in his Affidavit-in-Reply that after the execution of the said MOU, the Petitioner has acted upon the same and allowed the Society to transfer the rent receipts in the name of Respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Society has issued rent receipts in favour of Respondent No.2. A copy of the MOU dated 23rd July 2007 as well as the rent receipt issued by the Society in favour of Respondent No. 2 are annexed to the said Affidavit-in-Reply.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is guilty of contempt given a subsequent memorandum of understanding where he surrendered all rights.
Whether the suppression of a memorandum of understanding from the court renders the petition untenable.
Husain Taherali Changi
Muzaffar Fakhruddin Tinwala
Shaheeda Muzaffar Tinwala
Murtuza Arsiwala
S.J. KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
