Dismissed

Smt.Ramabai Prakash Gope v. Laxman Devji Bhate and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014CONP/28/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition alleged breach of interim orders prohibiting alienation of suit properties. The court dismissed the petition against six respondents finding no breach regarding roof replacement. It also dismissed the petition against a seventh respondent for failure to prove service of the contempt notice.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed against all respondents; no order as to costs.

1.The petition alleges contempt by Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 of two orders dated 22nd December 1999 and 7th December 2001 in Suit No. 6908 of 1999. The order of 22nd December 1999 was passed in Notice of Motion No. 388 of 1999 in Suit No. 6908 of 1999. A statement was recorded on behalf of the Defendants that till further orders the Defendants would not sell, transfer, alienate or create any third

party rights in respect of the suit properties mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint. The order of 7th December 2001 refers to the previous order and considers the submission made by the Plaintiffs that despite the previous order of 22nd December 1999, the Defendants had disposed of some portion of the property in question. It notes that contempt proceedings had then been initiated. The notice of motion was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). That prayer clause is neither annexed to this contempt petition, nor set out in the body of the petition. I will proceed on the assumption, though in a contempt jurisdiction I do not see why I should as a charge of contempt, even civil contempt, must be complete in and of itself, that that order grants some form of an injunction.

2.What is now alleged is that sometime in April 2010, the contesting Respondents constructed a room of 8 ft. x 12 ft. in the open space between the old house and the well, constructed a toilet block and raised the height of the old house. They also replaced the Mangalore roof tiles with asbestos cement sheets.

3.A separate relief is sought against Respondent No. 7 saying that he has, in breach of these two orders, constructed a structure for his factory at C.S. No. 94(a), a property that is the subject matter of the suit.

4.So far as the reliefs against Respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, i.e., having constructed a 12 ft. x 8 ft. room, raised its height, and replacing its roofing tiles is concerned, an affidavit in reply has been filed by those

Respondents. In this affidavit, these allegations have been specifically denied. What is demonstrated is that there is no new structure. Only the roofing tiles have been replaced with an asbestos cement sheets. That is no breach of any order. On the face of it, there is no contempt that can be said to have been committed by Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The contempt petition is dismissed as against those Respondents.

5.As regards Respondent No. 7, it is submitted that it has not been possible to serve the Respondent No. 7 although every effort is made. I do not see how it is possible to pass an order on a contempt petition unless there is proof of service. There are several modes of service available to the Petitioner. At the very least, an affidavit of service ought to have been filed by this stage. Mr. Patel seeks time to file that affidavit of service. I have declined that request. The petition is of 2011. It alleges contempt of the orders of 1999 and 2001, and says this contempt was committed in 2010. Three years is enough time to file something as routine as an affidavit of service.

Smt.Ramabai Prakash Gope v. Laxman Devji Bhate and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ramabai Prakash Gope v. Laxman Devji Bhate and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Twilight Mercantiles Private Limited and Anr.

Pandurang Kamlakar Patil and Ors. Vs M/S.Soham Builders and Ors. and Dharmibai Dattatray Patil and Anr. (Applicant)

Vinay Amin and Ors. Vs Sajawat Consultants Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Smt.Vijaya v. Bhosale

Metro Shoes Ltd. and Rafique Abdul Malik Malik Vs Merito

Toraytex Weaves Pvt. Ltd. Vs Green Emirates Shipping Travels and Ors.

Rashid S. Oomerbhoy Vs Nargis M. Oomerbhoy and 8 Ors.