Dismissed

Saroj Indreshkumar Dube v. Kaushik More and 3 Ors. (Contemnors) and the Municipal Commissioner and 2 Ors. (Respondents)

Bombay HC14 Jun 2018CONPW/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court declined to entertain a Contempt Petition seeking action against four contemnors for alleged breach of an order dated 5th July, 2017, in Writ Petition No. 432 of 2015. The judgment held that since the order contained directions only against the Municipal Officer and not the contemnors, no case of contempt was made out.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition declined to be entertained and disposed of.

Saroj Indreshkumar Dube Vs Kaushik More and 3 Ors… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

512-CPL-32-2018.DOC

¶2

Jsn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO. 32 OF 2018 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 432 OF 2015

¶6

Saroj Indresh Kumar Dubey … Petitioner Versus Shri Kaushik More & Ors. … Contemnors AND The Assistant Municipal Commissioner & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Gulab R. Dwivedi and Mr. Ram V. Singh for the Petitioner. Ms. Asha Nair, i/b Diamondwala & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. Amit Shasttri, AGP for Respondent No.7. Ms. Shital Mane, for Respondent – BMC.

¶9

CORAM: A.S. OKA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATE: 14TH JUNE, 2018.

¶10

PC:-

¶11

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶12

By alleging that there is a breach of order dated 5th July, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 432 of 2015, the Petitioner is seeking an action under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against four contemnors. However, on perusal of the order dated 5th July, 2017, we find that there were no directions issued by this Court against the four contemnors. The directions were against the Municipal Officer who has admittedly complied with the same.

¶13

1/2

¶14

512-CPL-32-2018.DOC

¶15

Therefore, no action for civil contempt can be initiated as no case of breach of any order passed by this Court is made out against the contemnors.

¶16

Accordingly, we decline to entertain the Contempt Petition and the same is disposed of. However, the other remedies of the Petitioner against the contemnors are kept open.

¶17

( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶18

2/2

Saroj Indreshkumar Dube v. Kaushik More and 3 Ors. (Contemnors) and the Municipal Commissioner and 2 Ors. (Respondents)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Indreshkumar Dube v. Kaushik More and 3 Ors. (Contemnors) and the Municipal Commissioner and 2 Ors. (Respondents)

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

Riyaz Ahmad Mannan Khan Vs the Commissioner , Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Abdulla Abdul Latiff Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bipinchandra Harivallabhdas Shah Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Smt. Kamal Laxman Borole through Her Constituted Attorney Vs State of Maharashtra through Hon'Ble Minister for Town Planning Dept. and Ors.

Narayan Bapu Vaze Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.