Mr V.K. Kulur, Managing Director of M/S. M.E. Engineering Combines Private Limited v. Venus Tranding Compay, Represented by Executive Mr Manish Shirish Modi

Bombay HC18 Jul 2017CP/50/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner sought action against the respondent for alleged breach of a High Court order. The court observed that the earlier order had been complied with and that subsequent trial court orders could be challenged through appropriate legal remedies rather than contempt proceedings. The petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no orders as to costs.

Mr V.K. Kulur, Managing Director of M/S. M.E. Engineering… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

31.cp-50.17.doc

¶2

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.50 OF 2017

V. K. Kulur

… Petitioner

vs.

Venus Trading Company … Respondent

¶9

Mr. K.A. Khan for the Petitioner.

¶10

None for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : A.K. MENON, J. DATE : 18 th JULY, 2017

¶12

P.C.

¶13

This contempt petition seeks to secure action against the contemnor being the sole respondent for alleged breach of order dated 19 th January, 2009 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition no.2459 of 2008 and 2460

¶14

of 2008. At the hearing of the matters the counsel for the first respondent

¶15

who is respondent in this contempt petition made a statement that the first respondent's witness would available himself for examination under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In view of the said statement, the impugned order was set aside and the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and the documents tendered by the respondent no.1 which were taken on record by the Magistrate Court was directed to be returned to the complainant alongwith documents annexed.

¶16

Today, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the said order has

¶17

been complied with. However, thereafter vide an order dated 3 rd January,

¶18

1/2

¶19

31.cp-50.17.doc

¶20

2017 the trial Court has once again called upon the respondent to file an affidavit in this he contends amounts to contempt of the order dated 19 th January, 2009. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the order passed by this Court has admittedly been complied with. Subsequent order that may have been passed in the lower Court will be subject to an appropriate challenges permissible in law. I am not able to find any reason to entertain this petition. In the circumstances, I pass the following order:-

¶21

(i) Petition is rejected.

¶22

(ii) No orders as to costs.

¶23

2/2

Mr V.K. Kulur, Managing Director of M/S. M.E. Engineering Combines Private Limited v. Venus Tranding Compay, Represented by Executive Mr Manish Shirish Modi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr V.K. Kulur, Managing Director of M/S. M.E. Engineering Combines Private Limited v. Venus Tranding Compay, Represented by Executive Mr Manish Shirish Modi

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

Jasbir Singh Seroy Vs Chandraprakash Rai and Anr.

Smt. Bhagyashree Balu More and Ors. Vs Balu Ganpati More and Ors.

Kajal Sumar Biswas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sulabai Tukaram Mangade Vs Tukaram Laxman Mangade and Anr.

Imtiyaz Ismail Baig and Anr. Vs Mominpada Masjid Yakub Baig Trust and Ors.

Narendra Prabhakar Donwalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra