Dismissed

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud v. Mr. Ajit Sawant and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2013CAN/21/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order holding that allegations of contempt regarding an anticipatory bail breach were not made out. The Court rejected the request to recall the previous order, noting the petitioner failed to mention the fundamental fact that the alleged arrest did not violate the specific bail order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order was confirmed.

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud Vs Mr. Ajit Sawant and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

CA.21/12-CONTP. 260/10(6)

¶2

¶3

mnm

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2012 IN

¶6

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2010

¶7

Goldie Parshotam Sud Vs.

¶8

Ajit Sawani & Anr.

¶9

...Applicant/Petitioner

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

The Applicant/ Petitioner present in person

¶12

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 1^ST MARCH, 2013

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The applicant/petitioner desires to recall the order of this Court dated 2^nd September, 2011 in the above Contempt Petition. The applicant/petitioner present in person. He was not present on 2^nd September, 2011. His secretary was present. The order came to be passed upon what the respondents' Counsel informed the Court as per the respondents' case. The petitioner takes exception to that. The petitioner deserves to be heard. Hence the order dated 2^nd September, 2011 is recalled. The contempt petition is heard on merits.

¶15

The petitioner has alleged breach of the order dated 5^th June, 2008. Under that order the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail. The Khar police station was directed to give 72 hours notice to the petitioner if he was to be arrested. This order was passed upon the petitioner's anticipatory bail

¶16

CA.21/12-CONTP. 260/10(6)

¶17

¶18

application No.686 of 2008. In the application the petitioner alleged that on 2^nd June, 2008 officers of Khar Police Station had visited his building and he was assaulted upon the false complaint of certain persons mentioned therein at the instigation of certain other persons mentioned therein. The petitioner anticipated that he would be arrested pursuant to those complaints. Those complaints were sought to be made under Section 52 and 43 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It is in that complaint for an unauthorised construction which was being carried on at that time that the petitioner made that anticipatory bail application and obtained the aforesaid order. It is only in that complaint the petitioner could not have been arrested without such notice.

¶19

The petitioner has shown a brief summary of all the cases against him annexed to his petition. There are as many as 13 cases against the petitioner. The petitioner has applied for quashing several complaints. Proceedings would be going on under several complaints against the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner has not obtained and could not have obtained the aforesaid anticipatory bail application order in all those complaints. The petitioner also could not have obtained the anticipatory bail order for further complaints.

¶21

About 10 months after the anticipatory bail order was passed, the petitioner claims to be arrested on 4^th April, 2009. That claim is made in paragraph 59 of the petition.

¶22

CA.21/12-CONTP. 260/10(6)

¶23

¶24

The petitioner has mentioned the date of the order and the number of the petition in which it was passed. The petitioner has also mentioned that on 4^th April, 2009 he was arrested without notice. The petitioner has not mentioned that that was in the case in which he was granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner has mentioned what happened thereafter.

¶25

This Court is not concerned with any of the contentions of the petitioner including what happened upon that arrest in this petition. The court is only concerned with the breach of the precise order under the precise complaint in which the anticipatory bail order is passed. Though the petition runs in 66 paragraphs this one seminal fundamental fact is not mentioned.

¶26

In view of the numerous complaints against the petitioner admittedly filed and shown by the petitioner himself, it is impossible for the Court to see that the petitioner was arrested in breach of the anticipatory bail order itself. Hence though the petitioner may have a valid defence in various complaints or upon the case filed against him on 4^th April, 2009, the contempt alleged by the petitioner is not seen. Hence based upon the contentions of the petitioner in the petition itself the petition has to be dismissed.

¶27

It may be mentioned that on 2^nd September, 2012 when the petitioner was absent and his secretary represented him an affidavit in reply came to be filed by the respondent. That

¶28

CA.21/12-CONTP. 260/10(6)

¶29

¶30

affidavit in reply has not been considered in view of the fact that no case has been made out by the petitioner in the petition itself.

¶31

The petitioner applies for time to file a rejoinder of 300 pages. There is no reason to file a rejoinder.

¶32

In the above circumstances that application is rejected.

¶33

The petition is dismissed.

¶34

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud v. Mr. Ajit Sawant and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud v. Mr. Ajit Sawant 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

Narendra Singh Mansingh Rao and Ors. Vs the State of Maharasthtra and Anr.

Dr Jaydeep Rasiklal Gandhi Vs Sumati Dhiraj Joshi and Anr.

Mr Nirmal Nandkumar Sanganee and Ors. Vs Mrs. Neha Nirmal Sanganee and Anr.

Olice Johnson Dsouza @ Olive Machado Dsouza Vs Johnson Pascol Dsouza and Ors.

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. Vs Shubhangi Rajratna Kadam and Anr.

Afrin Iqbal Aga Vs Iqbal Abdul Sattar Aga and Anr.