BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 238/2008 (Prashant Shantilalji Kataria & Anr. v. Virendra Tarachandji Puglia)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The contempt petition is dismissed with no
Provisions considered
Judgment
issued by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3937/2008 on 17.09.2008, respondent no.1 has not paid the occupation charges @ Rs.10,000/- per month towards the suit flat from
Operative part
01.07.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 deposited Rs.45,000/- on 10.10.2008 but, thereafter failed to deposit the arrears of occupation charges and also the regular occupation 2 charges from November-2008 onwards. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 had deliberately flouted the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3937/2008. I have perused the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3937/2008. There was no direction to the respondent no.1 to deposit amount of Rs.10,000/- towards occupation charges from 01.07.2007 or the monthly occupation charges. The Court had, in fact, observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment dated 17.09.2008 that the order directing the respondent no.2, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, to supply electricity to the suit flat, where the respondent no.1 was residing with his family members, was confirmed subject to the payment of occupation charges of Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.07.2007 and in case the regular occupation charges were deposited by the respondent no.1. It appears that the order for 3 making of the deposit was not an unconditional one and in fact the order directing the Board to supply electricity to the suit flat was confirmed subject to the condition of making the deposit of the occupation charges. In case, the occupation charges were not deposited by the respondent no.1 as directed by the judgment dated 17.09.2008,the order directing the respondent no.2 to supply electricity to the flat would be deemed to have not been confirmed but, the non deposit of the occupation charges would not be a ground for initiating the contempt action against the respondent no.1. In this background, there is no case made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. APTE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The contempt petition is dismissed with no
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Jan 2009. The bench was VASANTI A NAIK.
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.