Dismissed

Devi Construction Company and Ors. v. Maharahstra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2015CP/213/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding alleged delay in deciding a representation despite a 2013 order, the High Court held that mechanical action under the Contempt of Courts Act was unwarranted as the breach was not willful, and the subsequent compliance made it a fit case for no contempt action.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the contemnors was discharged; remedies of the petitioners kept open.

Devi Construction Company and Ors. Vs Maharahstra State… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

cp-213.14

¶3

ash

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.213 OF 2014

¶6

Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.

¶7

Shri Rajshekhar V. Govilkar for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mrs. Deepa Chavan along with Shri Ravindra Chile and Shri Rahul Sinha i/by DSK Legal for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶9

Shri V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent No.7.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ DATED : 14TH AUGUST 2015

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents contemnors. A copy of the order dated 7^th August 2015 passed by the Competent Authority is tendered on record.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners makes a grievance that notwithstanding the order dated 29^th August 2013, the First Respondent did not decide the representation. As a result of the delay, the Petitioners were required to spend huge amount in the meanwhile. He urged that, therefore, notwithstanding the order belatedly

¶14

¶15

cp-213.14

¶16

ash

¶17

passed on 7^th August 2015, the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deserves to be taken. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Contemnors.

¶18

It is true that there is a delay on the part of the First Respondent in complying with the order dated 29^th August 2013. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is concerned, the law is very clear. It is ultimately a matter between the Court and the Contemnors. In case of every breach of the orders of this Court, action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 cannot be mechanically taken. Only if the Court is satisfied that in a given case, the breach is willful or deliberate that the action is required to be taken.

¶19

In the facts of the present case, considering the subsequent order passed by the concerned authority of the First Respondent on 7^th August 2015, this is not a fit case where the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should be taken against the Contemnors.

¶20

If the Petitioners have suffered any monetary loss due to any default on the part of the Respondents, it is for them to adopt appropriate remedy in that behalf.

¶21

¶22

cp-213.14

¶23

ash

¶24

Hence, the notice issued to the Contemnors are discharged. Remedies of the Petitioners are kept open.

¶25

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Devi Construction Company and Ors. v. Maharahstra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Construction Company and Ors. v. Maharahstra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandesh Chandrakant Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 7ORS

Mahesh Wamanrao Jadhav Vs Ujwala Mahesh Jadhav

Idea Cellular Limited and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri Ramchandra Maruti Gundal (Since Deceased) through LRs. Govind Ramchandra Gundal and Anr. Vs Shri Vikas Deshmukh Collector of Pune and Ors.

Sou. Arusha Sampat Dawkhar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to Govt. and Ors.

Shri. Murlidhar Ganpat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.