Dismissed

Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar and Anr. v. Shri Umesh Manohar Korade and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2024CP/116/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a contempt petition and an infructuous interim application. The petitioner withdrew the proceeding based on limited objections, and the court found no merit in the allegation of contempt regarding orders staying execution and maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition dismissed; Interim Application disposed of as infructuous.

Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar and Anr. Vs Shri Umesh Manohar… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 27-IA-6528-2024.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 116 OF 2017

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10053 OF 2009

¶6

Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar … Petitioner Vs. Shri Umesh Manohar Korade and Another … Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6528 OF 2024

¶9

¶10

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 116 OF 2017

¶11

S. S. Properties

¶12

… Intervener

¶13

In the matter between Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar … Petitioner Vs. Shri Umesh Manohar Korade and Another … Respondents

¶14

Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad a/w. Mr. Dhanraj Chavan, Mr. Amey Sawant and Mr. Pratik Sabrad for the Applicant (Intevenor in Contempt Petition). Mr. Sandeep Waghmare for Respondent No.1. Mr. Rohit Pawaskar for Respondent No.2.

¶15

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶16

DATE : 13^th MARCH 2024

¶17

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2024.04.02 19:18:24 +0530

¶18

1/3

¶19

 27-IA-6528-2024.docx

¶20

P.C.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that

¶22

since the objection was only with respect to measurement, the petitioner does not intend to proceed with the Contempt Petition.

¶23

I have verified the order of which contempt is alleged. Contempt is alleged of an ad-interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 10053 of 2009 dated 13^th February 2012 and order dated 24^th June 2014. By order dated 13^th February 2012 there was ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under :

¶24

“(b) That pending hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the execution, implementation and/ or operation of the impugned order dated 25/8/2009, the Respondent No. 30, passed by the Ld. Minister for Revenue, Maharashtra State in Revision Application No. Cons. 3403/1821/C.R. 227/L-1, be stayed.”

¶25

The order dated 13^th February 2012 further directed that there

¶26

will be status quo in respect of the revenue record of Survey No. 43 in respect of disputed parts of Survey No. 43. By order dated 24^th June

¶27

2/3

¶28

27-IA-6528-2024.docx

¶29

2014 the ad-interim relief granted by order dated 13^th February 2012 is confirmed.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the allegation in the contempt petition is regarding carrying out measurement and further constructions in the disputed area. He therefore submits that the petitioner does not intend to pursue the contempt petition. He therefore seeks leave to withdraw the contempt petition. Perusal of the contempt petition does not reveal any breach of the aforesaid orders.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find that there is any contempt of orders passed by this court. Contempt Petition is devoid of any merits. Hence, contempt petition is dismissed.

¶32

In view of the disposal of the Contempt Petition, nothing survives

¶33

in the interim application. Interim Application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶34

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶35

3/3

Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar and Anr. v. Shri Umesh Manohar Korade and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar and Anr. v. Shri Umesh Manohar Korade and Anr.

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

Ratan Jagannath Kale and Ors. Vs Jai Kisan Sheli Mendhi Sangopan Sahakari Sanstha Thru Chairman Arjun Thakaji Kokate and Ors.

Siddharth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Sanmadi Throiugh Dr. K. Sanamdikar Vs Siddheshwar Dattatraya Pujari and Ors.

Shri. Jerry Varghese Vs Sony Apts. Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Pawan Ravindra Panchal and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arun Gurav and Ors. Vs Gorai Mitratva Co.Op. Soc. Ltd. Thru Chairman and Ors.

Ms. S. S. Properties Vs Shri Vijay Uttam Balwadkar