- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 30 October 1995
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, B. L. Hansaria
- Result
- Appeal dismissed.
Headnote
Contempt of Court :
Order of High Court-Allegations·against respondents of violating the order-Held, 110 case of co11tempt made out agai11st some of the respon• dents-Not a fit case, for convicti11g other respondents for violation of the status quo order made by High Court.
The ap_pellant Company filed the appeal by special leave challenging the judgment of the High Court in contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. This is not a case fit for convicting respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for violation of the status quo order made by the High Court on May 30,1994. No case of contempt arises against respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Though 6th respondent was served with the notice directing him to be present, he was not present. His conduct is condemned as unbecoming of a responsible citizen. [525-C-D]
2: The Receiver's report di_sclosed that possession of 39,000 sq. mtrs. ol" land was given by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to the East West Develop· ment Company. In that behalf since the controversy was not focussed in the High Court and the matter has come to light only through the report submitted by the Court Receiver after the contempt proceedings were initiated, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action according to law. [525-G]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted.
Having heard all the counsel for both the parties in extenso and perusing relevant material on .record, ultimately we conclude that this is not a case fit for convicting respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for violation of the status quo order made by the High Court on May 30, 1994. No case of contempt arises against respondents Nos. I to 4. Though 6th respondent was served.with the notice directing him to be present, he was not present. Had we been informed at the beginning, we would have taken appropriate steps for his presence by non-bailable warrants. But at the_ end of the arguments, we were informed of it. We strongly condemn his conduct as unbecoming of a responsible citizen.
However, these facts which emerged at the hearing are relevant facts to be considered for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition on merits. Since the writ petition is pending, we decline to express any opinion on the facts and circumstances and on merits. The contempt petition is accord-ingly dismissed.
However, the High Court is requested to disposed of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Receiver's report disclosed that possession of 39000 sq. mis. of land was given by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the East West Development Company. In that behalf since the controversy was not focussed in the High Court and the matter has come to light only through the report submitted by the Court Receiver after the contempt proceedings were initiated, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action according to law. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10180 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.94 of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No. 559/94 in W.P. No. 1486/94.
P.P. Rao, F.S. Nariman, ArunJaitley, RamJethmalani, Ashok Desai, R.F. Nariman, H.N. Salve, Navin Vimal Dala~ P.N. Gupta, Navroj Seervai, R.N. and Manik Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, P.K. Mullick, Ms. Anuradha Bindra, R.N. Keshwani, P.H. Parekh, P. Shroff, S. Sharma, Ravinder Narain, Ashok Sagar, Punita Singh and Rajan Narain, for the Appearing parties.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.