Disposed

Sakhubai Sakharam Patekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017CP/642/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the contempt petition, holding that because the petitioner failed to furnish a fresh address for the certificate debtor, no contempt could be alleged, yet the court directed authorities to execute the recovery certificate if such an address is provided.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed; petitioner directed to provide fresh address of debtors M/s Avi Transport for execution of recovery certificate.

Sakhubai Sakharam Patekar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

¶4

______________________________________________________ CONTEMPT PETITION NO.642 OF 2015 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5202/2005

¶6

SAKHUBAI SAKHARAM PATEKAR VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Parag Shahane AGP for Respondent/State: Mr.R.V. Dasalkar.

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.L. ACHLIYA,JJ.
Dated: DECEMBER,18, 2017

¶11

Mr.Shahane, learned Advocate submits
that in spite of order of this Court,
respondent – authorities are not
executing recovery certificate. No steps
are taken by them.

¶12

2.Affidavitisfiledbythe
CommissionerCETandSecretary,
Admissions Regulating Authority, Mumbai
stating that the petitioner was asked to
furnish fresh address of the certificate
debtor. Even in the order passed by this
Court, it was directed to the present
petitioner to give fresh address of the

¶13

642.15cp

¶14

¶15

certificate debtor. But, the petitioner
has not given the same.

¶16

3.This Court in the order dated 26th
July, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.5202
of 2005 had specifically directed the
respondents therein to take immediate
stepsforexecutionofrecovery
certificate if the petitioner furnishes
the new address at which M/s Avi Transport
(Swapnil Kadam) can be located. As the
petitioner has not yet given fresh
address, the petitioner cannot alleged
contempt.

¶17

4.In that view, we dispose of the
present contempt petition. The petitioner
may give fresh address of M/s Avi
Transport. If such fresh address is
given, the respondents – authorities shall
execute it in accordance with law.

¶18

5.Contempt petition disposed of. No
costs.

¶19

(V.L.ACHLIYA,J) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J)

¶20

kadam/

Sakhubai Sakharam Patekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakhubai Sakharam Patekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Parbhani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Registrar, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith, Parbhani and Others Vs Abdul Sattar Abdul Razzak and Others

Tushar Chandrakant Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anant Kishanrao Pidge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Karmsing Rupji Wasawe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others