Dismissed

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar v. Anupam Shrivastava, Chief Manager

Bombay HC23 Sept 2019CP/319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a contempt petition filed by Prakash Laxman Chanderkar against Anupam Shrivastava regarding non-production of documents. The court dismissed the petition characterizing it as misconceived while retaining the petitioner's right to seek alternative legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition was dismissed, keeping the liberty of the petitioner to avail any other appropriate remedy.

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar Vs Anupam Shrivastava, Chief… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

cp 319.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2018

¶6

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar .. Petitioner
Vs.
Anupam Shrivastava
Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda .. Respondent

¶7

Mr.Prakash Laxman Chanderkar – Petitioner in-person present.

¶8

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶9

 DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2019

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

.The petitioner appears in person. By an office report

¶12

dated 03/03/2018, in view of provisions of Chapter IV -A (ii) of
the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the petitioner was

¶13

called for interaction. The Committee was of the view that the
applicant is not in a position to assist this Court Court effectively
in disposal of the present matter. When the matter appeared
before this Court today, I asked the contempt petitioner if he

¶14

wishes to be represented by advocate or by an legal aid. The
petitioner insisted that he wants to be heard in person. The
petitioner invited my attention to page 25 of the paper-book.

¶15

1/2

¶16

cp 319.18.doc

¶17

According to him, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dadar had directed Mr.Anupam Shrivastava i.e. respondent who
is Chief Manager, Varsova Branch of Bank of Baroda to produce
the documents which are mentioned therein. It is the
contention of the petitioner that only with a view to protect
some of the accused, the documents which are mentioned at
page 25 were not produced before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. According to the petitioner, on later
date some of the documents were produced but not all the
documents. According to the petitioner only 9 documents out
of 35 documents are produced.

¶18

2.Filing of the present Contempt Petition for non-
production of some of the documents before the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is completely misconceived.
Keeping the liberty of the petitioner open to avail of any other
appropriate remedy in accordance with law, present Petition is
dismissed.

¶19

 (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶20

2/2

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar v. Anupam Shrivastava, Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar v. Anupam Shrivastava, Chief Manager

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

Tulshiram Sitaram Mahajan and Ors. Vs Sharad Shankar Mangde and Ors.

D. Prabhu @ Desmond D'Costa Prabhu Vs Gateway Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Avinash Gothi Vs Niyazzoddin Paroddin Pathan and Anr.

Shri. Prasad Vinayak Vaidya Vs M/S. Laurent and Benon Management Consultants Ltd.

Mr. Ananta Sitaram Naik and Ors. Vs Mr. Tarlok Singh Lungani and Ors.

Shri. Balkrishna Harishchandra Pimple and Anr. Vs Shri. Pramod Harishchandra Pimple and Ors.