Dismissed

Mrs. Kalpana Bhagwan Pawar and Anr. v. S.S. Zende, Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2011CONPW/56/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition arising from delay in complying with a previous order, the Court accepted an unconditional apology tendered by the Respondents. The show cause notice was discharged, and the contempt petition was dismissed as the delay was not willful.

What did the court decide?

The unconditional apology was accepted, the show cause notice was discharged, and the contempt petition was disposed of.

Mrs. Kalpana Bhagwan Pawar and Anr. Vs S.S. Zende, Chief… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2011)

CONPW56_11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.56 OF 2011

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.756 OF 2010

¶7

Mrs. Kalpana Bhagwan Pawar and another ... Petitioners Versus Mr. S.S.Zende, Chief Executive Officer, SRA and another ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.G.Kurup, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Kumbhkoni a/w. Mr. Utangale, Advocate for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 2^ND DECEMBER 2011

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that the Respondents have committed contempt of the order dated 16^th August 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.756 of 2010. The order dated 16^th August 2010 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

¶12

“1] Looking to the nature of the grievance sought to be raised in this petition, it appears that it can be redressed by requiring the petitioners to submit the list of persons, who according to them, are ineligible. The petitioners shall submit such list of the allegedly ineligible persons to the SRA along with such material which the petitioners desire to produce. If the SRA finds any prima facie substance in such allegations, it will give an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties and also the petitioners and, thereafter, take decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date the petitioners submit the list of allegedly ineligible persons. Petition disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

¶13

Pursuant to the order dated 16^th August 2010, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondents. Today, the Respondents have appeared before this Court and pointed out that by the said order, the Respondents were directed to

CONPW56_11

take the decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and “ preferably within three months ”. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the Respondents have committed contempt by not taking the decision within a period of three months. However, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents fairly states that the orders of the Court are to be complied with in its letter and spirit and though there is no willful breach on the part of the Respondents, they have tendered an unconditional written apology to the Court for not taking decision in the matter within the period of three months. It is further pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents that the decision is already taken on 7^th September 2011 and the order dated 16^th August 2010 is, therefore, complied with. It is also pointed out that an application was made in March, 2011 before the Honourable Division Bench on behalf of the Respondents to extend the time given to the Respondents and by an order dated 1^st December 2011, the Honourable Division Bench in view of the decision already taken by the Respondents on 7^th September 2011 have extended time upto 10^th September 2011.

¶18

In view of the above, the unconditional apology tendered by the Respondents is accepted and the show cause notice stands discharged.

¶19

The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Mrs. Kalpana Bhagwan Pawar and Anr. v. S.S. Zende, Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Kalpana Bhagwan Pawar and Anr. v. S.S. Zende, Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

falguni wd/o mehul joshi and Anr. Vs purnima padmanabh joshi and Ors.

Niranjanlall R. Sanghai Vs Sushilkumar N. Sanghai and 5 Ors.

Om Sandan Co-Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Om Sandan Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Sherbahadur R.Yadav Vs M/S. Amal Herbel and Floral Extracts.

Prabhat India Ltd. Vs Karm Yogi Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Suraj Prakash Bhagat Vs Karm Yogi Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors.