Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, having its v. Kulsumbi Mohamed Yakub
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 2(b)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 115
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the City Civil Court on prima facie finding the petitioners to be guilty of the contempt of Court has directed the Registrar of that Court to submit the report to this Court for initiating the contempt…
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. A.H. Chheda & Shri M.R. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Shri Anthony T. Marques for the Respondents.
CORAM:
CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
CORAM: DATED: DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 DATED:
ORAL JUDGMENT:
ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT:
None present for the petitioners. Shri A.T. Marques for the respondents. Heard. Perused the records.
The petitioners challenge the order dated 11-3-1993 passed by the City Civil Court prima facie finding the petitioners to be guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act", and therefore directing the Registrar of the said Court to forward the report to this Court for initiation of the proceedings under [2] Section 10 of the said Act.
Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the City Civil Court on prima facie finding the petitioners to be guilty of the contempt of Court has directed the Registrar of that Court to submit the report to this Court for initiating the contempt proceedings. In other words, the impugned order cannot be said to be "case decided" within the meaning of the said expression under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this count itself, this revision application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly hereby dismissed. The rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ------
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 2(b); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Nov 2004. The bench was R M S KHANDEPARKAR.
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.