Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai v. Vardhan Associates

Bombay HC14 Nov 2024CONPW/76/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging respondents are wilfully wriggling out of Clause 8 of Consent Terms in Writ Petition No. 2160 of 2016, under which premises were to be provided free of cost. Court permitted substitution of Respondent No. 3 and directed filing of replies.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai vs Vardhan… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

915-CONPW-76-2024(1).DOC

¶2

Wadhwa

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 2016

¶7

Rajendra Singh Berisal Singh @ Gajanan Rajput …Petitioners & Anr

¶8

Versus

¶9

Vardhan Associates & Ors ...Respondents

¶10

Ms Jennifer Sagayarajan , for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr Chirag Balsara , with Bhavik Manek & Sharad Wakchour for the Respondents.

¶12

Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy) , with Deepti Thorat, for Respondent No. 3-SRA.

¶13

CORAM: M.S. Sonak &

¶14

Kamal Khata, JJ

¶15

DATED: 23rd August 2024

¶16

PC:-

¶17

Learned counsel for the Respondents point out that Sandeep Pawar impleaded as the 3rd Respondent is only an employee of the firm. Sandeep Pawar is present in the Court. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that Vardhan Associates is a partnership firm comprising Ashok Vardhan (Respondent No. 2) and Rohan Vardhan.

¶18

Digitally signed by SANDHYA SANDHYA BHAGU BHAGU WADHWADate: WADHWA 2024.08.28 12:02:33 +0530

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

915-CONPW-76-2024(1).DOC

¶21

Accordingly, leave is granted to delete Sandeep Pawar and substitute him with Rohan Vardhan as the 3rd Respondent.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Respondents says that they would appear for the firm (Respondent No.1), Mr Ashok Vardhan (Respondent No. 2) and Rohan Vardhan (Respondent No.3). Accordingly, no fresh notice is being sent to Rohan Vardhan— amendment to be carried out immediately. Reverification is dispensed with.

¶23

At least prima facie, we think that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this Contempt Petition are bent on wilfully wriggling out from Clause 8 of the Consent Terms filed in Writ Petition No. 2160 of 2016, based on which this Court made the consent order on 12 June 2018.

¶24

To our specific query about whether the shop referred to in Clause 8 of the Consent Terms is ready, Mr Balsara, based on instructions, was, no doubt, a little vague.

¶25

Initially, we were informed that a provision had been made. Later, it was elaborated that the premises had yet to be actually constructed, but there was some provision available for such construction on the first floor.

¶26

Mr Balsara states that the obligations in this consent terms were to be complied with subject to the Petitioners submitting documents and obtaining eligibility from the SRA. At least from

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

915-CONPW-76-2024(1).DOC

¶29

reading the consent terms, we do not find this was the position. The Respondents, by accepting their obligations under the Slum Act, had agreed and undertaken to this Court to provide which of the Petitioners’ residential premises admeasuring 269 sq feet of carpet area on the first floor of the free sale wing and a shop measuring 100 sq feet of carpet area on the ground floor in the free sale wing to Mr Rajendra Singh Rajput on ownership basis free of cost with all amenities.

¶30

Now, without constructing such premises for the last six years, at least prima facie, an attempt is being made to deny the benefits of these consent terms to the Petitioners on the specious plea that SRA will have to determine the eligibility issue.

¶31

If the Respondents wish to file any replies in this matter, they should do so before the next date.

¶32

10. List the matter on 29th August 2024.

¶33

(Kamal Khata, J)

¶34

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai v. Vardhan Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Manohardevi Berisalsingh Rajput Alias Manoribai v. Vardhan Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lajawab Fabrics vs Union of India and Ors.

Covestro India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Custome Group II and Anr.

Covestro India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs Group II G Ns-I and Ors.

Chandrakant Dattatray Chaudhari vs the District Collector Nashik and Ors.

Mayuresh Mahadev Zanje vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Sanjay Vasudev Madan and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.