← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/639/2022disposed off

Waterfron Housing And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Director Anil Sureshchandra Mundada v. Shri. Gangatharan D. Collector, And ORS.

2022-10-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar,Hon'Ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh3 pages

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

8. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 636 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2022 AND

9. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8837 OF 2021 AND

10. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7626 OF 2021 AND

11. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8838 OF 2021 AND

12. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 640 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2022 AND

13. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 641 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2022 AND

14. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 642 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2022 AND

15. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 643 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 179 OF 2022 Digitally signed by SANJAY ASARAM MANDAWGAD Date:

2022.10.17 12:33:07 +0530 SANJAY ASARAM MANDAWGAD

2/3 Waterfront Housing and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

... Petitioner

Versus

Gangatharan D. Collector and Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde i/by Ergo Juris for the Petitioners in all Contempt Petitions.

Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent-State in CP/636/2022, CP/640/20222 and CP/641/2022.

Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondent-State in CP/637/2022 Ms. R.M. Shinde, AGP for the Respondent-State in CP/638/2022, CP/642/2022 and CP/643/2022.

Ms. K.N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent-State in CP/639/2022. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 11 OCTOBER 2022 P.C. :

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The petitioner is alleging contempt of the common order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 7 April 2022. The Division Bench, after laying down the proposition as to which is the relevant date for calculation of valuation of Najarana, disposed of the petitions. Since no action is taken, contempt petitions are filed praying that action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be taken against the Respondents. The order was passed by the Division Bench on 7 April 2022, the contempt

3/3 petitions were filed on 15 September 2022 i.e. within around five months. We do not find that there is any breach of any specific time limit resulting into contempt, since the order passed by this Court has to be complied within a reasonable time. There is no challenge to the said order in which the interim order is passed. Therefore, we are not inclined to proceed further in contempt jurisdiction for compliance. We observe that the order passed by the Division Bench dated 7 April 2022, if not set aside or modified to be implemented within six months from today. 3.

The Contempt Petitions are accordingly disposed of. ( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )