Dismissed

Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2012CAW/2634/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a civil application regarding contempt proceedings. The applicant was called upon to show cause regarding an order issued by the Tahsildar violating a court stay, which was later withdrawn by the officer who tendered an unconditional apology, leading the Court to discharge the contempt notice.

What did the court decide?

The notice of contempt of court against the Tahsildar is discharged; the civil application is disposed of.

Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

caw2634.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2634 OF 2011

¶5

In WRIT PETITION NO.8020 OF 2010

¶6

Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd.

: Applicant

(Orig. Petitioner)

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶11

Mr.S.S.Kanetkar i/b. Drupad S. Patil for the applicant.

¶12

Mr.N.P.Deshpande, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents.

¶13

CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2012.

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents.

¶17

In the order dated 9.12.2011, a Division Bench of this Court has

¶18

observed that this Court granted interim relief by order dated 13.4.2011 in terms of prayer clause (e) of the petition. Prayer clause (e) has been

¶19

1/4

¶20

caw2634.11

¶21

reproduced by the Division Bench in the order dated 9.12.2011 and,

¶22

therefore, it is not necessary for us to reproduce the same again. It appears that in spite of the interim order and though the Tahsildar was aware thereof, he issued notice/order dated 30.7.2011 whereby the petitioner is called upon to pay a sum of Rs.44,23,973/-. It is in these circumstances that the Division Bench of this Court prima facie came to the conclusion that the action of the Tahsildar amounts to contempt of Court and, therefore, vide order dated 9.12.2011 issued notice to the Tahsildar, Mulshi calling upon him to show cause why action for contempt of Court should not be initiated against him.

¶23

Mr.B.B. Jadhav, Resettlement Officer (Kukdi Project) who has

¶24

passed the order dated 30.7.2011 filed an affidavit dated 25.1.2012 and in paragraph 4 of the same, he has stated thus:-

¶25

“4. I say that, I have the highest regard for this

¶26

Hon'ble Court and the Orders passed by it. I tender my unconditional apology for issuing Order dated 30^th July, 2011 bearing No.Gaukh/S.R./36/10. This order is withdrawn unconditionally by the Sub

¶27

2/4

¶28

caw2634.11

¶29

Divisional Officer Mr.Sanjay Patil.”

¶30

The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has submitted that the Officer

¶31

concerned has tendered unconditional apology and never intended to disobey the orders passed by this court. It is, therefore, submitted that the unconditional apology tendered by the Officer may be accepted. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader further submitted that the order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maval, whereby the order dated 30.7.2011 came to be withdrawn, it is observed in the said order that appropriate steps in respect of the amount i.e. Rs.44,23,973/shall be taken only after decision in Writ Petition No.8020 of 2010, if it permits the Sub-Divisional Officer to take such steps.

¶32

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and alo the affidavit 25.1.2012 filed by the Resettlement Officer. It is no doubt true that the Tahsildar could not have passed the order dated 30.7.2011 after grant of stay by this Court vide order dated 13.4.2011. Further, the Officer concerned has tendered unconditional apology and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has also

¶33

3/4

¶34

caw2634.11

¶35

brought to our notice that the said order dated 30.7.2011 has been withdrawn. We accept the unconditional apology tendered by the Officer and discharge the notice of contempt.

¶36

Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶38

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶39

Suundaresan

¶40

4/4

Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Shri. Sampat Ramchandra Ingale and Ors. Vs Shri. Kisahn Hariba Ingale and Ors.

Shri. Dallu Rama Bhogulkar Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation Kolhapur and Ors.

Krishna Raghu Tamkar(Decd.)by Lrs. Shama Krishna Tamkar and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Pravin Maniklal Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Election Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Vinayak Haribhau Patil and Ors. Vs the Additional Commissioner and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.