Shri Krsanrao Alias Krushna Shanrao Hanpude And ANR v. Shri Prakash Bimrao Hanpude

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.87 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.799 OF 2010 Kisanrao Hanpude & Anr.

...Petitioners

V/s.

Prakash Hanpude & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners.

Mr.Shrishail Sakhare for the Respondent No.1. Ms.Tanaya Goswami, A.G.P. for the State - Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2020.

P.C. :- 1.

By this Contempt Petition, the petitioners seek an action under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent nos.1 and 2 for the alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 22nd August, 2014.

2.

By an order dated 22nd August, 2014, this Court had directed the respondents to give security in respect of an amount of Rs.2,06,869/- to the satisfaction of the Labour Court, Solapur within eight weeks from the date of the said order. This Court also made it clear that if the respondents fail to furnish the security, the 1/3

respondents shall deposit the amount withdrawn by them in this Court within four weeks from the date that may be passed by the Labour Court. This Court clarified that the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for deleting the charge recorded in the 7x12 extract in respect of the property of the petitioners.

3.

Mr.Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that though the application is filed by the petitioners for deleting the charge recorded in 7x12 extract of the petitioners, such application is not decided till date. 4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents have admittedly not complied with the said order dated 22nd August, 2014 till date by furnishing the security in respect of an amount of Rs.2,06,869/- and failing to comply with that part of direction to deposit the amount withdrawn by the respondents in this Court. 5.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 on the other hand states that his clients have no objection if the charge recorded in 7x12 extract in respect of the property of the petitioners is deleted. Statement is accepted. The Authority is directed to delete the charge recorded in 7x12 extract of the petitioners reflected in 7x12 extract annexed at Exhibit - D to the Contempt Petition within two weeks from the date of communication of this Court, without fail. 2/3

6.

The Contempt Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.) 3/3