The court rejected the applicant's appeal challenging a lower order that dismissed a contempt petition for lack of merit, holding that since the matter was adjudicated, an appeal was not tenable per Supreme Court precedent.
The appeal and application were disposed of without granting any relief to the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.A. No.197/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.197 OF 2012 WITH CONTEMPT APPEAL STAMP NO.21231 OF 2011 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.169 OF 2006
Inderlal s/o Tulsomal Kamora
... APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
... RESPONDENT
Shri A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate for applicant Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for State
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATED: 23rd March, 2015.
ORAL ORDER :
the same is a dismissal in default and against the same, the appeal would be tenable. The learned counsel relies on the
C.A. No.197/2012
2
judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Clough Engineering Ltd., Australia Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Mumbai [2009 (III), Mh.L.J. 553].
“2. It appears that the contempt matter is filed as Tahsildar, Nanded did not make necessary entries in revenue record in spite of the direction given by the Court and consequent upon the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court in his favour. It is submitted on behalf of the State that Zilla Parishad is necessary party as the land in question is in the possession of Zilla Parishad Nanded. Moreover, there is no direction issued by this Court or any Court and, therefore, there is no question of any breach committed by the present respondents. In other words, there is absolutely no cause of action to file the contempt matter. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed for want of merits, with no order as to costs.”
C.A. No.197/2012
3
the merits of the matter. The Court has considered it in one way or the other. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. & ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda & ors. [2006(5) SCC 399, the appeal against such order would not be tenable. In light of that, the appeal as well as the application stand disposed of.
fmp/ca197.12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal is tenable against an order dismissing a contempt petition by holding that it lacks merit due to a previous observation on the cause of action.
Whether the lower court had improperly considered the merits of the contempt matter to render an appeal untenantable.
Inderlal s/o Tulsomal Kamora
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
S.V. GANGAPURWALA
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
