Mr.Sanjay Janardhan Patil v. Mr.Murlidhar Gangadhar Patil
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ss. 66, 67
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. It is evident from the affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane Region that the alleged acts amounting to breach of orders passed by the authorities below have been taken note of and criminal case bearing No. 610 of 2003 has…
Judgment
Mr.Sanjay Janardhan Patil ..Petitioner Vs. Mr.Murlidhar Gangadhar Patil and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Prafulla B.Shah for Petitioner Mrs. Gauri Jadhav for Respondent nos.1 and 2 Mrs. Geeta Mulekar AGP for Respondent no.3 .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 11,2005 DATE : FEBRUARY 11,2005 DATE : FEBRUARY 11,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Gauri Jadhav for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
It is evident from the affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane Region that the alleged acts amounting to breach of orders passed by the authorities below have been taken note of and criminal case bearing No. 610 of 2003 has already been registered in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. at Yeola for offences punishable under Section 37 r.w. Sections 66 and 67 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the said case is still pending. When the proceedings for -2- prosecution have already been initiated under a special Statute, cognizance for the alleged contempt cannot be taken again to punish the alleged contemnors. Therefore, Contempt Petition is disposed of as infructuous.
[ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 — ss. 66, 67.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Feb 2005. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.