Dismissed

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam v. Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Bombay HC14 Jun 2019CP/319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses three contempt petitions filed against the Municipal Council, Udgir for alleged non-compliance with a writ order. The court found the petitions were based on assumptions and misreading of facts, noting that the claimed amounts were already accounted for in a separate writ petition filed by the petitioners' union.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petitions were dismissed; the Civil Application disposed of accordingly.

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam Vs Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

923-CP-319-18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2018

¶4

¶5

WP/1675/17 WITH CA/6678/19 IN CP/319/18 IN WP/1675/17

¶6

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam

¶7

..PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Manisha Patankar-Mhaiskar and Others

¶10

..RESPONDENTS

¶11

WITH

¶12

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 321 OF 2018 IN

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 1675 OF 2017

¶14

Dharampal Shankar Ambegave ..PETITIONER

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

Manisha Patankar-Mhaiskar and Others

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

WITH

¶19

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2018 IN

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 1675 OF 2017

¶21

Vishwanath Vithalrao Gaikwad ..PETITIONER

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

Manisha Patankar-Mhaiskar and Others

¶24

..RESPONDENTS

¶25

Mr. M.S. Choudhary, Advocate for petitioners Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondent no.4

¶26

CORAM : P.B. VARALE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATED : 14^th JUNE, 2019

1 / 6

923-CP-319-18.odt

PER COURT :

Heard Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for petitioners.

¶31

Petitioners are before this Court with grievance that respondents and more particularly Respondent No.4 – Municipal Council, Udgir failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court on 03^rd May, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017. In order dated 03^rd January, 2019, Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (P.B. Varale, J.) was member, recorded some observations for not accepting the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners.

¶32

Mr. Barde, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 – Municipal Council, Udgir submitted before us that order of Division Bench dated 03^rd May, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017 directs Municipal Council to pay the amount which is due and payable and the Division Bench in clear words further observed that this due and payable amount must be an admissible amount. Mr. Barde, learned Counsel submits that stand of the Municipal Council is that the petitioner, who stood retired and have submitted their claim through the union viz. Marathwada Lal Bawata Kamgar Union, the union representing these three petitioners alongwith other members had approached the competent authority viz. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur seeking recovery of the amount due and payable of its members and

¶33

2 / 6

¶34

923-CP-319-18.odt

¶35

this amount sought to be recovered to the tune of Rs.4,64,55,484/- only. It is also submitted by Mr. Barde that the union had filed Writ Petition No. 6758 of 2016 for the same relief viz. recovery of the amount. Then Mr. Barde submitted that these petitioners are raising their claim in two parallel proceedings i.e. present contempt petition and the claim being represented through the union in the separate writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 6758 of 2016. Mr. Barde placed before us a chart so as to submit that the amount as alleged by these petitioners due and payable is already paid to these petitioners and same amount over and above the due entitlement is paid to these petitioners.

¶36

Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for petitioners vehemently submitted before us that all these contentions, which are raised by Mr. Barde, are already raised before this Court while passing order dated 03^rd May, 2017. It was the submission of Mr. Choudhary that these contentions were raised in affidavit-in-reply to Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017 and Division Bench could not find any favour with respondent – municipal council on the contentions raised and reflected in affidavit-in-reply and ultimately passed order on 03^rd May, 2017.

¶37

To deal with the controversy on the backdrop of the submissions and counter submissions, we have called the record of Writ Petition No. 1675

¶38

3 / 6

¶39

923-CP-319-18.odt

¶40

of 2017. On perusal of the record it reveals that no reply is filed in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017 on behalf of Municipal Council, Udgir. As such, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Choudhary that the contentions raised by municipal council were the very contentions raised in affidavit-inreply in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017 and the Division Bench while passing order in Writ Petition No. 1675 of 2017 turned down the contentions. Thus, it is clear that the statement of Mr. Choudhary before us is not in consonance with the record.

¶41

Perusal of Writ Petition No. 6758 of 2016 filed on behalf of the union through its General Secretary shows that the document Exhibit “A”, placed on record, is a document in respect of the settlement arrived at between the parties viz. members of union and Municipal Council, Udgir. Exhibit “B” to the said petition refers to the name of the employees and their amounts due and payable under the heads like gratuity, pension, leave encashment and amount of pension. In the list we could find the names of these three contempt petitioners i.e. Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam, Dharampal Shankar Ambegave and Vishwanath Vithalrao Gaikwad at Sr. Nos. 183, 182 and 200 respectively.

¶42

Now the amounts which are shown in this chart against these contempt petitioners are exactly same as the amount unpaid to these

¶43

4 / 6

¶44

923-CP-319-18.odt

¶45

petitioners in contempt petitions and this chart is for example chart annexed to Contempt Petition No. 319 of 2018, the total amount shown by petitioner due and payable is Rs.5,45,038/- and this very amount is shown in the chart submitted in Writ Petition No. 6758 of 2016 against entry no.183 of Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam. Now the contempt petitioners, in the body of the petition, refers to certain other amounts as due and payable against municipal council. On a specific query to Mr. Choudhary as to the source of this quantification and also as to whether this is an admissible amount by municipal council, Mr. Choudhary submitted before us that these calculations are by higher services of private accountants and there is no other support to these quantifications.

¶46

Mr. Barde, learned Counsel for municipal council submitted that municipal council made request to the State Government to provide funds so as to make payment of the claims under the recovery certificate. State Government forwarded certain amount under 13^th Finance Scheme and with this financial assistance, municipal council paid the amount of Rs.4,64,55,448/-. This amount includes 15% interest. This reference finds place in Annexure R-2 i.e. the communication placed on record alongwith affidavit. This is a communication forwarded through Chief Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Udgir to Assistant Commissioner, Labour, Latur.

¶47

5 / 6

¶48

923-CP-319-18.odt

¶49

Considering all these facts, the only conclusion can be drawn is that these contempt petitions are only based on assumptions, presumptions and misreading of the facts. Needless to say that the contempt petitions, as such being devoid of merits, are dismissed. Civil application also disposed of accordingly.

¶50

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )

¶51

SSD

¶52

6 / 6

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam v. Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Afsar Shaikh Imam v. Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Ganpati Madle Vs Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Ramesh Mareppa Parkhe Vs Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Nizamoddin Abdul Wahed Vs Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Vishwanath Vithalrao Gaikwad Vs Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Dharmpal Shankar Ambegave Vs Manisha Patankar Mhaiskar and Others

Archana Harichandra Jite and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others