Disposed

Shree Mumbeshwar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2012CONPW/15/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt admission petition, the court addressed an alleged breach of a previous order regarding the petitioner's blacklisting by the respondent corporation. The court accepted an undertaking granted in court for a fresh hearing and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The undertaking for a hearing on 7th February 2012 was accepted, and the contempt petition was disposed of.

Shree Mumbeshwar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited Vs the… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 907.conpw-15-12

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 15 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1749 OF 2011.

¶5

Shree Mumbeshwar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited. ..Petitioner.

¶6

vs.

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, i/b. Devmani Shukla, for Petitioner. Ms. T.H. Puranik, for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY 2012.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The above Contempt Petition is for Admission. It is alleged by the Petitioners that the Respondents have willfully breached the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 24^th August 2011, more particularly paragraph 3 thereof which reads thus :

¶12

“3. The writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the orders in question relating to blacklisting of the petitioner with a direction to the Corporation to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner.”

¶13

The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner informs the Court that the Corporation has till date not called the Petitioner for a hearing and has therefore committed breach of the said order. The

¶14

2 907.conpw-15-12

¶15

Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents on instructions submits that though the Petitioner was spoken to over the phone by the officials of the Respondents and a letter was also sent to him asking him to attend the hearing fixed on 11^th November 2011, the Petitioner failed to attend the hearing.

¶16

The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner disputes having received any telephone call and/or any letter from the Respondents. To put to an end to this dispute, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation on instructions from the Officer who is present in Court undertakes that the Chief Engineer, SWM, shall give a hearing to the Petitioner on 7^th February 2012 at 3.00 p.m. and shall pass his orders within four weeks thereafter. The undertaking is accepted. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Shree Mumbeshwar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Mumbeshwar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Limited v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 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

Rizvanullah J. Choudhary and Ors. Vs Hafizullah Aahsanuullah and Touch Wood Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Mathurdas Karsandas Natha and Ors. Vs Bai Motibai Kasara Baug Borivli Trust and Ors.

Klen and Marshalls Mfrs and Exporters Ltd. Vs Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd.

Vijay Rashmikant Shah Vs Narendra a. Sheth and Ors. and Vinesh R. Shah

Hrishikesh Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors.

Hariprasad U.Pandya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.