Mrs. Mehar Rusi Dalal Vs. T.K. Banerjee and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Contempt Petition No. 162 of 1998
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14709 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.97 of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No. 101 in W.P. No. 1733 of 1994)
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14709 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.97 of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No. 101 in W.P. No. 1733 of 1994)
Petitioner: Mrs. Mehar Rusi Dalal
Respondent: T.K. Banerjee and Ors.
Apeal: Contempt Petition No. 162 of 1998
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14709 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.97 of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No. 101 in W.P. No. 1733 of 1994)
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14709 of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.97 of the Bombay High Court in Notice of Motion No. 101 in W.P. No. 1733 of 1994)
Judges: S.N. VARIAVA & H.K. SEMA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 2004
Appearances:
Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr. B.S. Bhesania, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. U.J. Makhija, Mr. Anil K. Misra, Ms. Mahalaxmi Pavani, Mr. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. N.N. Goswami, Senior Advocate, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Mr. D.N. Mishra, Mr. Hemant Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents
Mr. N.N. Goswami, Senior Advocate, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Mr. D.N. Mishra, Mr. Hemant Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents
Head Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 – Application to court that payment be not made, after giving undertaking. Held, cannot be punished for contempt as every one has right to move court and file proceedings. (Para 2)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 – Application to court that payment be not made, after giving undertaking. Held, cannot be punished for contempt as every one has right to move court and file proceedings. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
1. We have heard parties.
2. In our view, every party has a right to move a court of law for adjudication of his rights. Mere filing of proceedings in a court of law and applying to a court of law that the payment may not be made would not amount to breach of undertaking. We therefore see no reason to punish for contempt. The contempt notice will stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
1. We have heard parties.
2. In our view, every party has a right to move a court of law for adjudication of his rights. Mere filing of proceedings in a court of law and applying to a court of law that the payment may not be made would not amount to breach of undertaking. We therefore see no reason to punish for contempt. The contempt notice will stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
