Yogacharya Shri Anandji v. Jaihind Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Apr 2006
- Bench
- V R KINGAONKAR
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ss. 2(c), 15
- Constitution of India art. 215
Judgment
Yogacharya Shri Anandji... .. Petitioner. Versus Jaihind Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.& Ors.... Respondents. Petitioner present-in-person. Mr. Ashwin Thakkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. Ms. Usha Kejriwal, APP for Respondent No.7. CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: By this petition, the Petitioner seeks action for contempt of Court against the Respondents named on the allegation that they had deliberately filed statement knowing it to be false and made false statement. Request was made to the Advocate General for Maharashtra for granting consent to prosecute as required by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
Operative part
1971. That consent was denied. Therefore, the -: 2 :- Petitioner has moved this petition as a realtor and wants this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution. Looking to the nature of averments made, we are firmly of the view that no criminal contempt as defined by Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out. Hence, petition is dismissed. -.-.-.-.-.-.-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 2(c), 15; Constitution of India — art. 215.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Apr 2006. The bench was V R KINGAONKAR.
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.