Dismissed

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

Bombay HC27 Jan 2012CONPW/20/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court at Bombay examined an allegation that the Respondents breached an order by issuing a vacation notice. The Court held the new notice was under a different statutory provision and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; finding that the notice issued under Section 77(b) of the MHADA Act does not violate the prior restraint order.

Hariprasad U.Pandya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 908.conpw-20-12

¶2

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

¶3

jmi

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2012 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1976 OF 2002.

¶6

Hariprasad U. Pandya & Anr. ..Petitioners.

¶7

vs.

¶8

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. A. Bharti, i/b. M.P. Vashi & Assoc., for Petitioners. Mr. P.G. Lad, for Respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The above Contempt Petition is for Admission. it is alleged by the Petitioners that the Respondents have committed breach of the order dated 3^rd September 2002 more particularly, paragraph 6 thereof which reads thus :-

¶13

“6. We record the statement of the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 that in case the petitioners make representation within three weeks, till the decision is taken thereon and for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said decision, no action shall be taken in respect of the disputed property pursuant to the notice dated 10-12-2001. We accept the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.”

¶14

The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that despite the said order, the Respondents have issued a notice to the Petitioners dated 17^th March 2007 calling upon the Petitioners to vacate the Suit premises.

¶15

2 908.conpw-20-12

¶16

A perusal of paragraph 6 of the order dated 3^rd September 2002 makes it clear that the Respondents were restrained from taking any action in respect of the disputed property pursuant to the notice dated 10^th December 2001. The said notice pertains to acquisition of the disputed property or a part thereof. The present notice dated 17^th March 2007 is not pursuant to the notice dated 10^th December 2001. The said notice dated 17^th March 2007 is a notice under section 77(b) of the MHADA Act, 1976 issued by the Respondents to the Petitioners since the Suit premises are found to be dangerous/unfit for human habitation.

¶17

In view of the above, the Petitioners cannot be heard to say that the Respondents have taken action pursuant to notice dated 10^th December 2001 and have thereby committed breach of the order dated 3^rd September 2002 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. In the circumstances, no case is made out by the Petitioners in support of their contention that the Respondents have committed breach of the order dated 3^rd September 2002. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed.

¶18

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariprasad U.Pandya and Anr. 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

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.

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