Disposed

R.K. Surgical, Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Parmar v. the Jt Commissioner (Kokan Division) Food and Drug Administration and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2018CP/305/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging violation of an order restraining coercive action. It held no case for contempt as seizure occurred at adjacent premises belonging to the proprietor's son. The seizure itself remains open for separate redress. No opinion expressed on seizure validity.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of finding no case made out against respondents.

R.K. Surgical, Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Parmar Vs the Jt… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 906.305.16 cp.doc

¶2

ISM

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 305 OF 2016

¶6

R. K. Surgical, through Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Parmar

¶7

…..Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The Jt. Commissioner (Kokan Division) …..Respondents Food and Drug Administration and others

¶10

Ms. Jagruti Gaonkar i/b Mr. P. N. Kilpady for the petitioner Mr. B. V. Samant AGP for the State

¶11

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & NITIN W SAMBRE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 10^th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The contempt alleged is of the order dated 23/01/2018 passed

¶15

by a Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, the Division bench had restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. The contempt is founded on the fact that the respondents seized Orthopedic Implants under the Digitally signed IreshSiddharam by IreshSiddharamMashal Panchanama from the premises of one M/s. Parmar Engineering of Mashal Date: 2018.10.12 11:24:09 +0530

¶16

2 906.305.16 cp.doc

¶17

which the son of the Proprietor of the petitioner i.e. R. K. Surgical is the proprietor. The said fact has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State by one Umakant Gajananappa Bagmare, Drugs Inspector. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, she states that the premises of the said M/s. Parmar Engineering are adjacent to the premises of the petitioner herein and that the owner of the said M/s. Parmar Engineering is the son of the proprietor of the petitioner.

¶18

2 Having regard to the aforesaid facts, no case for invocation of the Contempt jurisdiction against the respondents is made out. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, it would be open for the petitioners to seek appropriate redressal against the seizure that was effected by the respondents. We express no opinion in that regard.

¶19

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

R.K. Surgical, Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Parmar v. the Jt Commissioner (Kokan Division) Food and Drug Administration and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K. Surgical, Thru. Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Parmar v. the Jt Commissioner (Kokan Division) Food and Drug Administration 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

Dr. Mrs. Suneeta Sudhir Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Umesh Budhaji Thakar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Vikram Madhukar Dange Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjyog Utkarsh Mahila Mandal Vs the Secretary, Social Justice and Special Aid Department

Digambar Jagannath Nimbalkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

K.S. Lakshminarasimhan Vs Airports Authority of India and Anr.