Contempt Petn. No. 17 of 1995. Case: Nandakishore s/o Nathmal Lakhotia Vs Satyanarayan s/o Birdichand Chaube. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Contempt Petn. No. 17 of 1995 |
| Counsel | For petitioner: J. T. Gilda, Advs. and For Respondents: Anilkumar Thakkar, Advs. |
| Judges | R. M. Lodha, J. |
| Issue | Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) - Sections 2, 12 |
| Citation | 1995 CriLJ 3335 |
| Judgement Date | March 15, 1995 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
1. Heard.
Shri Gilda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the non-compliance of the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994 is not a civil contempt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, yet on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram, (1989 supp (2) SCC 418): (AIR 1989 SC 2285), the respondents have committed the contempt by not complying with the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994.
-
Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has himself conceded that the non-compliance of the judgment and decree by the respondents is not a civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ordinarily, question of hearing the petitioner further in the matter would not have arisen, but since the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Firm Ganpat Ram v. Kalu Ram (cited supra), the observations made in the said judgment may be adverted to find out that due to the non-compliance of the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994 by the respondents what consequence should follow.
-
In Firm Ganpat Ram v. Kalu Ram, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 418: AIR 1989 SC 2285, (cited supra), the Apex Court passed the following order:
In view of the finding that the landlord has made out a case for eviction under Section 13(3)(c) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the special leave petition is dismissed. The order of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months on the petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. The dismissal of the special leave portion should also not prevent the petitioner to the benefit of putting back into possession in the equivalent accommodation in the reconstructed building provided the Court lays down such condition while interpreting the provisions of the Act. We are informed that the question is pending consideration before this court in some other cases i.e. W.D. Nos. 13385, 9921-24 of 1983 etc.
Despite the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, no undertaking was filed by the tenant and he also did not vacate the premises on expiry of six months from the date of passing of the order and when the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings for disobedience of the order dated 24-8-1987 passed by the Apex Court, the Supreme Court thus observed:
Though...
To continue reading
Request your trial