This contempt petition, filed by a petitioner aggrieved by a High Court order granting interim relief, alleges concealment of material facts. The High Court found no prima facie material to substantiate the allegations and rejected the petition, declining to entertain it.
The contempt petition was not entertained and was rejected.
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.
criconp-15.13
1
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.15 OF 2013
Sham Shankar Pevekar … Petitioner Versus Shriniwas Shridhar and Ors. … Respondents
None for the Petitioner. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2016
P.C.
1 None appears for the Petitioner. The Petition is listed on board as the Petitioner has not removed office objections. One of the office objections is that though the Petitioner is seeking relief of initiating action for committing criminal contempt against the concerned Respondents, the consent of the Advocate General is not filed on record. There are various objections including the objection regarding non-filing of the second set. We have perused the averments made in the Contempt Petition. The only material averment regarding contempt is in paragraph 16 which reads thus :-
“16. The Petitioner state that the Respondent had approached the Bombay High Court through Criminal
1 of 2
2 criconp-15.13
Application No.2076 of 2010 and 2627 of 2010 for quashing the said F.I.R. The Respondent have misguided the Court by concealing and hiding the material facts before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore the Hon'ble High Court granted the interim relief to the Respondent for 'not taking coercive action against the Respondent by the Investigating Authority. The Respondent have hidden the material facts and misguided the Hon'ble Court regarding 'sanction of 11 loans for construction of flats which had been purchased by the Petitioner in his name and in the name of his wholly dependent mother along with others as joint owner'. Therefore, this order is passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit 'F' is the copy of the Order dated 18th January, 2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court.”
(P. D. NAIK, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bald allegations against a High Court order constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sham Shankar Pevekar
Shriniwas Shridhar
A.S. OKA
P. D. NAIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
