Dismissed

Jayshree Mukesh Gotecha v. Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha

Bombay HC4 Oct 2013CONP/13/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner challenged the respondent for allegedly violating status quo orders regarding suit property construction. The Court, relying on a Municipal Corporation report and tax assessment history, accepted that the structure was pre-existing and in the tolerated category, finding no violation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Jayshree Mukesh Gotecha Vs Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2013)

kvm

1/2

21-CONP13.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2013 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 735 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 524 OF 2007

¶5

Jayashree Mukesh Gotecha ..... Petitioner VERSUS

¶6

Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha ..... Respondent

¶7

Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Neel Helekar, a/w. Mr.Atman Mehta, Mr.Hemant Telkar, i/b. Haresh Mehta & CO. for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶10

DATED : 4^th OCTOBER, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

By this petition, petitioner seeks an action against the respondent for alleged violation of the orders dated 11^th April, 2007 and 9^th July, 2007 passed by this court in Notice of Motion No. 735 of 2007 in Suit No. 524 of 2007. By an order dated 11^th April, 2007 this court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till the next date of the order which order continued from time to time and is in force.

¶13

It is grievance of the petitioner that insptie of the status quo order, the respondent commenced the construction above the shops and seeks to place reliance on the photographs annexed to the petition.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand placed reliance on the report dated 11^th February, 2011 of Municipal Corporation,

kvm

2/2

21-CONP13.13

annexed to the affidavit in reply. It is stated in the report that from the assessment report, it is clear that the shed on the terrace for which the stop work notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation was in existence prior to 1961-62 and comes under tolerated category. Reliance is also placed on the letter dated 3^rd January, 2005 addressed by the Assessor and Collector to demonstrate that in the year 200304, the terrace with A.C.roof was assessed to the tax and a sum or Rs.80.36 was charged.

¶19

Learned counsel also invited my attention to the averments made in the affidavit in reply and in particular paragraph (6) thereof in which it is averred by the respondent that only because of natural wear and tear the said plastic sheet covering the said terrace was damaged and was thus required to be removed and no construction whatsoever has been done by the respondent in violation of the order passed by this court. It is also stated that there is no permanent structural alternation or modification in respect of the said premises. Statement made in paragraph (6) of the affidavit in reply is accepted.

¶20

Learned counsel states that there is no violation of the order passed by this court in view of the status quo order passed by this court and respondent shall not carry out any alteration or construction of any nature whatsoever so as to violate order passed by this court. Statement is accepted.

¶21

In my view, no case is made out for initiating any proceedings for contempt against the respondent in view of the report submitted by the Municipal Corporation and on perusal of the letter dated 3^rd January, 2005 which indicates that terrace shed was existing since prior to atleast 2003-04.

¶22

Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]

Jayshree Mukesh Gotecha v. Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayshree Mukesh Gotecha v. Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha

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

Midtown Holding Leasing and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharfuddin Unismiyakazi and Orts. and Bhikamdas Gulabchand and Co. and Ors.

Francis James Almeida S/O Charles I. Almeida Vs Rosy C. Almeida Wd/O Charles I. Almeida and 3 Ors.

Atv Projects India Ltd. Vs Central Bank of India

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Harjit Singh Sohal and 7 Ors. and Ramesh S. Sakhare

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Harjit Singh Sohal and 7 Ors.

Jeetmal Mangalchand Sakhlecha and Ors. Vs M/S Neelkanth Building Corporation and Ors.