Contempt petition alleging breach of an ad-interim relief order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The High Court declined to invoke contempt jurisdiction since the petitioner had remedies by execution or under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, and dismissed the petition.
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.
20-CP-151-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 151 OF 2024
Anil Narayan Patankar ...Petitioner
Versus The Asst Registrar Co Operative Societies S Ward Mumbai ...Respondent
None, for the Petitioner.
Mr. J. P. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State. Mr. Suraj Haralkar, i/b SC Legal, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2024
P.C.:
petitioner has an remedy available to execute the said order or
Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADARDate: JAMADAR 2024.08.02 17:22:41 +0530
1 of 2
Sajakali Jamadar
20-CP-151-2024.doc
file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, I am not inclined to invoke the contempt jurisdiction. Petition is dismissed.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
2 of 2
Sajakali Jamadar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether contempt jurisdiction should be invoked for breach of an ad-interim order when the petitioner has alternative remedies to execute the order or move under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Narayan Patankar
The Asst Registrar Co Operative Societies S Ward Mumbai
Avinash G. Gharote
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
