Disposed

Mr. Shivaji Babu Kamble v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal Secretary State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2018CP/106/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this single-judge order discharging a contempt petition and related civil application, the bench held that substantial compliance with the impugned order was demonstrated via affidavit and apology. The Court rejected grievances regarding pay-fixation and service books as they require appropriate procedural remedies under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition No. 106 of 2014 and Civil Application No. 105 of 2018 disposed of with no action against respondents.

Mr. Shivaji Babu Kamble Vs Dr. Sanjay Kumar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Rane

¶2

1/3 CP-106-2014 (SR.23) 17.12.2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8086 OF 2010

¶6

Shri. Shivaji Babu Kamble and Ors.

¶7

….Petitioners

¶8

V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr. Avinash R. Belge, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Y.S. Khochare, AGP for the respondent-State.

¶12

Coram : A.S. Oka, &

¶13

Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ.

¶14

th Monday, 17 December, 2018.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

The breach alleged is of the order dated 23^rd July, 2013. Perused the affidavit-in-reply of Dr. Rajkumar Motilal Kamble, Divisional Joint Director, Higher Education, Kolhapur. Perusal of paragraphs-4 and 5 of his Affidavit shows that, there is a substantial compliance is made of the order of which breach is committed. For the delay, the said officer has tendered an apology.

¶17

Rane 2/3 CP-106-2014 (SR.23) 17.12.2018

¶18

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to Civil Application No. 105 of 2018 in

¶19

which a grievance is made that the fifth and sixth respondents have not provided a copy of the service book to the petitioner.

¶20

The Affidavit of Dr. Rajkumar Motilal Kamble shows that, not only that compliance was made but after payfixation, certain amounts have been paid to the petitioner.

¶21

If the grievance of the petitioner is that either payfixation is not proper or the entire amount due is not paid, the same cannot be entertained in this Contempt Petition and the petitioner will have to adopt appropriate remedy.

¶22

Even as regards the alleged failure to provide service book, we find that there is no direction issued under the order of which breach is alleged. Therefore, the petitioner will have to adopt appropriate remedy for redressal of this grievance. Suffice it to say that, no case is made out to take any further action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, the questions, whether the petitioner is entitled to a copy of service book

¶23

and whether the pay-fixation is proper, are kept open to be

¶24

Rane 3/3 CP-106-2014 (SR.23) 17.12.2018

¶25

decided in appropriate proceedings. Even the grievance, if any, of the quantum of amount payable to the petitioner is kept open. Subject to what is observed above, the Contempt Petition as well as the Civil Application are disposed of.

¶26

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)

¶27

(A.S. OKA, J)

Mr. Shivaji Babu Kamble v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal Secretary State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shivaji Babu Kamble v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal Secretary State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Suresh Narayan Jagdale and 3 Ors. Vs the Collector,Office of Mumbai Suburban District and Anr.

Sheila Chrisitian Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Prakash Shankar Dhembare Vs Union of India through the Secretayr, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Indu. Security Force and or

Zuber Mohd. Kasam Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Central Bank Employee'S Union and 5 Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sujata Ashok Gaikwad @ Sujata Bajirao Shinde Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner