Dismissed

M/S. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2013WP/832/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging an order that rejected a contempt application. Finding the plaintiff’s case relied solely on a bare statement without material buttressing the allegation of breach of undertaking, the Court held the impugned order was correct and no interference was warranted.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-832.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.832 OF 2013

¶4

Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioner. Versus

¶5

The Chinar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & ors. : Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Q M Ashfaq for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 12^th April 2013

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 10/10/2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai by which order the Contempt Notice of Motion No.1886 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

¶10

2 The contempt alleged is of the undertaking given by the Defendant in SC Suit No.2270 of 2006 which was recorded on 24/6/2009 whilst disposing of the suit. The said undertaking was to the effect that the Defendant would not restrain or obstruct visitors to the flat in question. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has obstructed the persons who had come to install the air conditioner in the suit premises.

1 of 2

lgc

wp-832.13

3 Per contra, it is the case of the Defendant that on 27/4/2010 one Yogendra Taparia entered upon the society premises and asked its security guard Krishna Dhanawade to allow the delivery vehicle of air conditioner to the suit premises. The said security guard asked him to make an entry and sign in the visitors book maintained by the Defendant, but he refused to comply with the same. In view of the fact that a part from the assertion made in the application no material to buttress the said case was produced by the Plaintiff.

¶15

4 The Trial Court reached a conclusion that the allegation that the Defendant Nos.1 to 8 have not abided by the undertaking was not proved and therefore there was no willful and deliberate violation of the said undertaking given by the Defendant Nos.1 to 8.

¶16

5 Considering the fact that the application moved was one alleging contempt against the Defendant Nos.1 to 8, the same had to be proved by placing cogent material on record by the Plaintiff. In the facts of the present case, wherein except the bare statement, no material has been placed on record by the Plaintiff. The order rejecting the application for initiating the contempt proceedings against the Defendant Nos.1 to 8 cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is therefore made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

lgc

M/S. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Shankar Jangam and Ors. Vs Maruti Shivram Jangam

Ratan Housing Development Limited through Ashok Omprakash Jain Vs Shri. Shivaji Sarjerao Pathare and Ors.

Sheth Devkaran Mulji Jain Sasta Bhadani Chawl Trust and Ors. Vs Mahendra Himmatlal Shah and Ors.

Sawalaram Anand Mahar Vs Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal and Ors.

Mr. Jagganath Sambhu Mane Vs Mr. Dagadu Sopan Mane and Ors.

Shri. Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. Vs Smt. Ashabai Arun Galande and Ors.