Disposed

Anil S/O Ramkrushna Deshmukh v. Ku. Shilpa Bobde and Others

Bombay HC18 Apr 2017CP/245/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging violation of interim protection regarding land possession, the Court noted that although attempted possession occurred, actual possession remained undisturbed and an apology was filed. The Court chose to dispose of the matter without imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt notice discharged; petition disposed; parties to bear own costs.

Anil S/O Ramkrushna Deshmukh Vs Ku. Shilpa Bobde and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 cp245.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2016 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1077 OF 2016

¶5

(ANIL RAMKRUSHNA DESHMUKH....VS.. KU. SHILPA BOBDE & OTH.)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri A.R.Ingole, advocate for Petitioner. Shri Bhagwan M. Lonare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(c).

¶11

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATED : APRIL 18, 2017.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(c), identified by their advocate, are present.

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court by this contempt petition with a grievance that though by the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.1077 of 2016 on 15^th February, 2016, the possession of the petitioner over the field in question was protected, the respondents sought to take the possession.

¶15

The respondent No.2(a) filed an application before the Collector on which notice was issued to the petitioner intimating him that possession of the field in question is to be taken over. The petitioner had filed Writ petition No. 1077 of 2016 which is allowed by the judgment given on 24^th March, 2017 and the application filed by the respondent No.2(a) on which notice was issued to the petitioner is dismissed.

¶16

2 cp245.16

¶17

The respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and the respondent No.1 have filed their replies explaining the circumstances under which the application was filed by the respondent No.2(a) to 2(c) and the notice was issued by the respondent No.1. The respondents have also tendered unconditional apology.

¶18

The explanation given by the respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(c) and the respondent No.1 is not satisfactory. However, in the facts of the case and as the possession of the petitioner over the field in question is not disturbed, though attempted, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶19

I intended to impose costs on the respondents, including respondent No.1, however, the order to that effect is not passed in the hope that henceforth the respondent No.1 will act with more responsibility in discharging her duties.

¶20

The notice of contempt issued to the respondents is discharged. The petition is disposed accordingly. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

RRaut ..

Anil S/O Ramkrushna Deshmukh v. Ku. Shilpa Bobde and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O Ramkrushna Deshmukh v. Ku. Shilpa Bobde and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vidarbha Bidi Ltd. Thr Director Shri Gautam Punjaji Ahire and Another Vs the Maharashtra Rajya General Bidi Kamgar Union Thr General Secty. and Other

Universal Ferro and Allied Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai Vs Maha. Ferro Alloys Mazdoor Sangh Ekta Bhavan, Tumsar and Anr.

M/S Vidarbha Bidi Ltd. Thr Director Shri Gautam Punjaji Ahire and Another Vs the Maharashtra Rajya General Bidi Kamgar Union Thr General Secty. and Other

Pramod Bansilal Sharma and Anr. Vs Manohar S/O Kisanuji Dekate and Anr.

Bhushan Wasudeorao Moon Vs State of Maha., Thr. Executive Engineer, Public Works Dept., Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur and Another

The Principal, Shri Niketan Arts and Commerce College, Nagpur and Another Vs the Joint Director, Higher Education Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Another