Dismissed

Shri. Vyankatrao Chaudhary Secretary Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha Gondia and Another v. Shri. Ghanshyam Jaganath Meshram

Bombay HC4 Apr 2022CPL/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench disposed of a contempt appeal challenging service of notice and limitation. Bench kept issues open for the appellant to urge as a defence in the petition and did not entertain the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal not entertained; all questions including limitation left open for defence in petition.

What the court decided

Shri. Vyankatrao Chaudhary Secretary Pratibha Shikshan… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1/2

¶2

9-CPL-03-22

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.03 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.255 OF 2016

¶5

Vyankatrao Bhivramji Choudhari, Secretary Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha Borgaon (Wadegaon) Tah. Tiroda, District Gondia, Maharashtra and anr.

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Ghanshyam Jagannath Meshram, Sahkar Nagar, Dist. Gondia

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Shri R. V. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND SMT M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : April 04, 2022

¶13

Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to the service of notice issued to the appellant as per Chapter XXXIV Form 1 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

¶14

It is submitted by Shri R. V. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant that the contempt petition was filed beyond limitation. The order dated 22/09/2015 directed deposit of 50% back-wages within period of one month therefrom. The notice in the contempt petition was served on the appellant after the period of limitation. It is also submitted that part of the amount of back-wages has already been deposited.

¶15

We find that the aspect of limitation can be urged by the

¶16

2/2

¶17

9-CPL-03-22

¶18

appellant by appearing in Contempt Petition No.255/2016. Infact the appellant had earlier filed Contempt Appeal No.10/2016 raising similar questions. By keeping those questions open the said appeal was not entertained. We are inclined to follow a similar course. By keeping all questions open including the aspect of limitation for being urged by way of defence before the learned Single Judge and by keeping the points raised in the appeal open, the contempt appeal is not entertained. It is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(Smt M. S. Jawalkar, J.)

¶20

Asmita

¶21

Digitally signed byASMITA ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR Signing Date:04.04.2022 17:26:38

Shri. Vyankatrao Chaudhary Secretary Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha Gondia and Another v. Shri. Ghanshyam Jaganath Meshram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shri. Vyankatrao Chaudhary Secretary Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha Gondia and Another v. Shri. Ghanshyam Jaganath Meshram

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

Prabhakar S/O Kashinath Ghaiwat Vs the Zilla Parishad, Nagpur through the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Nagpur and Another

Ganesh Haribhau Wavre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education, Mumbai and Others

Mr. Prakash S/O Vasantrao Rahate and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary General Administration Departemnt, Mumbai and Others

Siddharth Netrabandh @ Shiva Pawar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. the. Officer in Charge Ps Mangrul Chavala Tq. and Dist.Amravati

Hajarat Dina Shah Wali Dargah and Masjid Trust, Thr. Pre., Sattar Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan Vs Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs, Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Aurangabad and Another

M/S Balaji Servicing Centre Thr. Proprietor, Sachin R. Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others