Disposed

Rajendra B. Kasare v. Union of India, the Law Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Feb 2015CP/309/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt petition where the petitioner produced a receipt confirming payment of all outstanding medical bills. The Court held the petition would not survive as no liability remains, though liberty was granted for fresh proceedings if future bills are not paid. Costs were declined.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with liberty to file fresh proceedings for non-payment of subsequent bills; no costs awarded.

Rajendra B. Kasare Vs Union of India, the Law Officer and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

CP 309-2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 309 OF 2014

¶4

Rajendra S. Kasare .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Ms. Rachana Chavan with Ms. Suvarna G. Pratap for the petitioner. Ms. S.V. Bharucha with Mr. R.C. Master for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 6.

¶6

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

¶7

DATE : 27 FEBRUARY 2015

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 6 seeks leave to place on record a photostat copy of the receipt dated 25 February 2015 given by the petitioner – R.B. Kasare, which reads as under:-

¶10

“This is to certify that payment of all outstanding medical bills till date have been made to me in entire satisfaction of Hon'ble Bombay High Court Order dated 25 Mar 2014 and nothing is outstanding on account of medical bills submitted by me.”

1 of 3

ABS

CP 309-2014

Leave as prayed for is granted. Copy of the receipt is taken on record.

¶15

It is obvious that in view of the receipt about payment received by the petitioner, nothing would survive in this contempt petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that she would like to take further instructions in the matter from the petitioner.

¶17

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has received the payment as per the above receipt (payment of all outstanding medical bills till 25 February 2015), we are of the view that this contempt petition would not survive. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take out fresh proceedings in case of non-payment of subsequent bills.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays for

¶19

costs.

¶20

We note that in prayer clause (c), the petitioner has prayed for costs of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation or any other costs for the mental agony suffered by him at the hands of the

2 of 3

ABS

CP 309-2014

respondents, which was the prayer in the main petition. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any costs. But we make it clear that in case the petitioner is required to file any other petition on account of any delay or inaction on the part of the respondents in paying the petitioner's medical bills, the Court will certainly consider awarding costs.

¶25

It is further clarified that these observations are made on the basis that the petitioner himself takes a reasonable stand while submitting the medical bills for reimbursement and also while dealing with any queries or clarifications which may be sought by the respondents.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

ABS

Rajendra B. Kasare v. Union of India, the Law Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra B. Kasare v. Union of India, the Law Officer 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

Sharekhan Ltd. Vs Rajesh Shah and Anr.

Anil Gajanan Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Swapnil a. Bagul and Anr. Vs M/S. Shishu Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Shri. Shirish Vinayakrao More and Ors. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner and Ors.

Mr. Hemant Baburao Patil Vs Union of India, through Office Attorney General and Ors.

Actgen Pharma Pvt.Ltd. Vs Jianagxi Co.Ltd.