Disposed

Dattu Sonaba Kasabe v. Mahesh Pathak and Another

Bombay HC12 Oct 2015CP/366/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner sought compliance with an order awarding compensation from a prior writ petition, which remained unimplemented. The respondents submitted that the order was forwarded to the Finance Department and awaited approval. Finding no gross disobedience, the court disposed of the petition by consent, warning that the petitioner could file a new contempt petition if

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the contempt petition by consent; directions to decide within twelve weeks with liberty to approach again if delayed.

Dattu Sonaba Kasabe Vs Mahesh Pathak and Another — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2015)

25.cp.366.15

kps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 366 OF 2015

IN WP/2713/2001

DATTU SONABA KASABE

VERSUS

MAHESH PATHAK AND ANOTHER

¶10

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Latange V.P. AGP for Respondents: Shri D.R.Korde.

¶11

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶12

DATE :- 12^th October, 2015

¶13

Per Court:

¶14

1 While issuing notice to Respondent No.2, this Court had

¶15

noted in it's order dated 15.07.2015 as under:-

¶16

“1 Respondent No.2/ Manager of the Government Milk Scheme, Ahmednagar was the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2713/2001. This Court by it's oral judgment dated 04.09.2014 had partly allowed the writ petition and had directed the payment of compensation in paragraph 18 which reads as follows:-

¶17

“18. In the peculiar facts recorded above and since the respondent is in litigation with the petitioner from 1993 onwards, I am inclined to follow the view of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota (supra). In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned Award is, therefore, quashed and set aside, but with the direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.1,75,000/-

¶18

¶19

25.cp.366.15

¶20

(Rs.One Lakh Seventy Five thousand only) as a lump sum compensation to the respondent within a period of twelve weeks from today.”

¶21

2 It is submitted that till today the said payment has not been made. The present Petitioner has no knowledge as to whether, the present Respondent No.2/ Petitioner in Writ Petition, has approached the Honourable Supreme Court. The Petitioner further submits that in the absence of any orders from the Apex Court, the original Petitioner/ Respondent No.2 herein was duty bound to implement the order of this Court.

¶22

3 In the light of the above, issue show cause notice only to Respondent No.2 returnable on 10.08.2015.

¶23

4 Respondent No.2 shall file an affidavit in reply.”

¶24

2 The learned AGP appears on behalf of the Respondents and

¶25

places on record a communication dated 12.10.2015. Relying upon the said communication, it is submitted that the order passed by this Court dated 04.09.2014 has been sent to the Finance Department for implementation. The decision on the said count is awaited. The same is likely to be taken in the near future.

¶26

3 Shri Latange, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that

¶27

if this Court could pass an order/ issue a direction to the Respondents to

¶28

decide the said aspect within a period of eight weeks, this petition could be disposed of since the Petitioner would then receive the amount as has

¶29

¶30

25.cp.366.15

¶31

been awarded by this Court as compensation.

¶32

4 The learned AGP is agreeable in the light of the said

¶33

communication.

¶34

5 The communication dated 12.10.2015 placed before this Court is taken on record and marked as Exhibit X for identification.

¶35

6 In the light of Exhibit X and the statement made by the Respondents that they would take a decision on payment of compensation within a period of twelve weeks from today, this Contempt Petition is disposed of by the consent of the Petitioner.

¶36

7 Needless to state, in the event the Respondents do not take any decision as has been recorded above, the Petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to available legal remedies including the remedy of filing

¶37

a contempt petition.

Dattu Sonaba Kasabe v. Mahesh Pathak and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattu Sonaba Kasabe v. Mahesh Pathak and Another

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

Mustafakhan Omarkhan. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Ganesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal at Selu Vs the State of Mah.and Ors.

Narayan Mariba Chavan Vs Jeevan Vikas Shikshan Sanstha Tuljapur and Ors.

The Principal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Manohar Dadaji Nerkar Vs Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Shikshan Sanstha through Its President and Others

Navnath Bhimraj Shinde and Another Vs Yashwant Sahakari Kukkut Sanstha Ltd. and Another