Smt. Jayashree Ganesh Pachare v. Shri Manohar Harishchandra Pevekar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Dec 2006
- Bench
- H BHATIA, B H MARLAPALLE
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 2(c)
Judgment
Smt. Jayashree Ganesh Pachare ...Petitioner. V/s. 1. Shri Manohar Harishchandra Pevekar & Anr. ...Respondents. Shri R.P.Kadam for the Petitioner. Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 20th December, 2006. DATE : 20th December, 2006. DATE : 20th December, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who alleges that respondent no.1 who had filed writ petition no.1780 of 2005 before this Court had made a false statement that he is the owner of the residential premises situated at 180-6419, Kannamwar Nagar No.2, Vikhroli (East), Bombay- 400 083.
Admittedly in the said petition, respondent no.1 was not granted any relief.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that no prima-facie case has been made out to entertain this petition for criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and if respondent no.1 is : 2 : guilty of making a false statement in any proceedings, the petitioner may approach the competent authority with a criminal complaint. We have also noted that the learned Advocate General did not entertain the application submitted by the petitioner for leave to file this contempt petition.
Petition is, therefore, rejected summarily. ... (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)
(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 2(c).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Dec 2006. The bench was H BHATIA, 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.