Dismissed

Shirish R. Kale v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2015CONPW/21/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition against Corporation of Greater Mumbai alleging non-consideration of 1989 Confidential Report under an order directing consideration from 1984-1989. Court found no case for contempt as deemed promotion date was Jan 1989, making 1989 report irrelevant. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shirish R. Kale Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

bsb 1

¶2

CONPW21.14.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 1997

¶5

Shirish Ramkrishna Kale … Petitioner

¶6

v/s

¶7

Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai & ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr.Prashant G. Karande for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.S.S. Pakale along with Ms.Shobha Ajitkumar for the respondent BMC.

¶10

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C. V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 30 JANUARY 2015

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard.

¶14

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents under the Contempt of Court Act. According to the petitioner, the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 23 February 2011 in Writ Petition No.825 of 1997. It is stated that this Court had directed the respondents to consider the correct Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the year 1984 to 1989 within a period of three months and communicate the

¶15

bsb 2

¶16

CONPW21.14.doc

¶17

decision on the promotion of the petitioner, to the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents have considered the Confidential Reports of the years 1984 to 1988 and have not considered the Confidential Report of the year 1989. It is further stated that the correct Confidential Reports are not considered as the petitioner was not communicated with the Confidential Reports.

¶18

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that no case is made out by the petitioner for initiating action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents have considered the Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. The order of which the contempt is alleged, clearly mentions that the Confidential Reports for the year 1984 to 1989 would be taken into consideration. Since the petitioner has sought the deemed date promotion with effect from 16^th January 1989, there was no question of considering the Confidential Report of the year 1989 as the date on which the petitioner had sought deemed date promotion was at the beginning of the year 1989. No case for initiating action against the respondents under the Contempt of Court Act is made out.

¶19

The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶20

(C. V. BHADANG, J.) ( VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Shirish R. Kale v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shirish R. Kale v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 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

Shri Amiruddin Azizpasha Jagirdar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Ganpat Gaikwad Vs M/S. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Education Society

Elson Joseph Fernandis and 50 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs.Rashmi Mahesh Tawade Vs the Clare Road Jesus and Mery Society and 4 Ors.

Sunil Babani H.U.F. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 53 Ors.

M/S. Manav Builders Private Limited Vs Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and 5 Ors. and Raees Ahmed Shaikh (Applicant/Inter