Ranjankumar Shankarrao Taware v. Commissioner Of Sugar, Pune

1/2 9.CP.163.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.163 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2438 OF 2020 Ranjankumar Shankarrao Taware & Ors.

.... Petitioners

Versus

Commissioner of Sugar, Pune & Ors.

.... Respondents Mr. Amol Gatne for the Petitioners.

Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Kishor Patil i/b. Mr. J. G. Arodwad (Reddy) for Respondent Nos. 3 to 16, 18 & 19 Mr. Shekhar Jagtap a/w. Mr. Shubham Gade, Adv. Sairuchita Chaudhary, Adv. Mayuresh Ingele, Adv. Padmaja Malgaonkar i/b. J. Shekar & Co. for the respondent no. 22.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED :

2nd AUGUST, 2022 P.C.:

1.

The contentions of the counsel for petitioners are even if the respondents were elected as a members of the Board of Director of Co-operative Sugar Factory, in law the petitioners were entitled to continue till 03/04/2020 based on which the High Court in WP/2438/2020 has granted protection.

2.

The order dated 06/03/2020, according to him restrains the respondents from interfering with the working of the petitioners as a members of the Managing Committee of the respondent-coakn 1/2

2/2 9.CP.163.2022.doc operative sugar factory.

3.

By inviting attention of this Court to the complaints lodged with police, subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order, it is urged that the respondents have withdrawn the dak register so also the proceedings and other documents 4.

As such the contempt is alleged.

5.

The fact remains that there appears to be a rivalry between the petitioners and the respondents.

6.

The operation of the order of this Court is not a fact in dispute, however, what can be noticed is petitioners have lodged complaint against a particular person who was alleged to have removed the aforesaid documents from the Sugar Factory. 7.

But for the statement of the petitioners there is no evidence to draw such an inference of a contemptuous act of the respondents.

8.

Even otherwise the petition of the petitioner has rendered infructuous by efÒux of the time.

9.

As such no contemptuous act could be inferred. The petition as such is dismissed.

ANANT KRISHNA NAIK ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date: 2022.08.03 20:01:32 +0530 (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) akn 2/2