Dismissed

Bombay Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. v. Ramdeo Coils Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2014CONP/61/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the petitioner challenged the respondents for allegedly violating an order appointing a receiver for machinery. The court held that the order of the respondent was not established as no evidence showed disposal of machinery and the receiver faced no obstruction. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed and the notice is discharged.

Bombay Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ramdeo Coils Pvt.Ltd… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

conp61-12.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITON NO.61 OF 2012 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.135 OF 2012

¶6

Bombay Chemicals Private Limited ...Petitioner vs Ramdeo Coils Private Limited & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rohan Cama, a/w. Ms. Sapna Rachure, i/b. T.N. Tripathi & Co., for the Petitioner.

¶8

None for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶10

Reserved on : 22 April, 2014

¶11

Pronounced on : 18 September, 2014.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. This is a Contempt Petition praying for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondents for having willfully breached the order dated 31 March 2012, passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition No.135 of 2012. By this order, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as receiver of the machinery described in Exhibit “A” to the Arbitration Petition with power to take possession of the same. The Respondents herein were restrained from creating third party rights or using the said machinery. The gravamen of the charge in the Petition is that whilst two of the three machines described in Exhibit “A” to the Arbitration Petition were taken possession of by the Court Receiver from the factory site of the Respondents, major parts of the third machine

¶14

Pg 1 of 2

¶15

conp61-12.doc

¶16

were found to be missing; that on inquiries it was learnt that these parts have been shifted to the residence of Respondent No.3 at Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh; and that upon inquiries with Respondent No.3, he denied having taken the machinery to Bhopal and claimed that the Petitioners had already taken possession of the said machinery.

¶17

There is nothing on record to show that any part of the machinery was dealt with or disposed of or even transferred out of the factory premises by the Respondents after the order dated 31 March 2012 was passed by this Court. There is nothing on record to show that the Court Receiver was obstructed in any way from taking charge of the assets described in Exhibit “A” to the Arbitration Petition or even that the Respondents failed to co-operate with the Court Receiver in the discharge of his obligations under the orders of this Court.

¶18

Merely because the Respondents have stated in their affidavit in reply to the Arbitration Petition that the machineries described in Exhibit “A” were still lying in the factory premises, and that the third machine was not found to be fully intact with all its parts when the Receiver reached the site, the breach or defiance of the order cannot be said to be established.

¶19

No case is made out for taking action against the Respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Petition is dismissed and the notice is discharged.

¶20

( S.C. GUPTE, J. )

¶21

Pg 2 of 2

Bombay Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. v. Ramdeo Coils Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. v. Ramdeo Coils Pvt.Ltd. and 2 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

Bombay Saint Paul Society Vs Carlton Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Dilip H. Shah Vs Rashmikant Shah and 9 Ors.

Shashilal R. Nair Vs Mary Kutty Emmanual

M/S. Indu Enterprise Vs Manohar B. Darpe and 6 Others

Nenshi Ganesh Mirani Vs Amrutlal Ganesh Mirani

Manish Shah HUF and Anr. Vs M/S.Sri Venketeshwara Creations and 2 Ors.