Dismissed

Sanjay S Paithanikar and Others v. S K Goyal and Other

Bombay HC21 Sept 2013CP/436/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this single bench order, the High Court of Bombay at Bombay dismissed the Contempt Petition No. 436 of 2010. The court held that the controversy regarding non-hearing was directed to be decided by a Division Bench on merits and thus could not be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction. Consequently, no action was deemed fit in contempt.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition is totally misconceived and dismissed. No costs.

Sanjay S Paithanikar and Others Vs S K Goyal and Other — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

cp.436.10.1.doc

kps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.436 OF 2010

¶6

Sanjay S. Paithanikar and others. ..Petitioners -Versus-

¶7

S.K.Goyal and others. ..Respondents

¶8

...............

¶9

Mr.S.B.Deshpande, for the Petitioners. Mr.Asif Patel, AGP, for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

...............

¶11

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶12

G.S. PATEL, JJ.

¶13

Date : 21^st September 2013.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

¶16

2 Perused the order of the Division Bench dated 19.03.2010 in Writ Petition No.2046/2010. In the affidavit filed upon notice issued by this Court, it has been clarified that an order was passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The stand taken in the earlier affidavit is clarified in the further affidavit and we are satisfied that there is no merit in the Contempt Petition. If the Petitioners urge that they were not heard or that the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is otherwise erroneous in law, then, nothing prevents the Petitioners from challenging the said order on both counts, namely, for breach of principles of natural justice and on merits. As far as the contempt jurisdiction is concerned, we cannot

¶17

¶18

cp.436.10.1.doc

¶19

go into the disputed issues when the Respondents filed the affidavits and clarified that they passed the subsequent orders because they realized that the Petitioners were not heard earlier. The Petitioners submit that they were not heard on both occasions. This controversy cannot be gone into contempt jurisdiction as the Division Bench has directed that decision be taken and within the time stipulated therein. Though there is delay in complying with the order, but for the reasons set out in the affidavits, we do not deem it fit to take any action in Contempt jurisdiction.

¶20

3 The Contempt Petition is totally misconceived and is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

( G.S.PATEL, J.)

¶22

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Sanjay S Paithanikar and Others v. S K Goyal and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S Paithanikar and Others v. S K Goyal and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anandi D/O Khobdiba Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasant Sakharam Jaiswal Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Lahu Ramchandra Pilena Vs Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Ravindra Gajanan Palekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rishabh Ramesh Bharuka and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Hiraman Mohol Vs the State of Maharashtra