Bombay High Court
CONPW/83/2006 of PRADEEP PURUSHOTTAM THAKKAR Vs D.M. ASAWALE AND 4 ORS. on 22 December 2006
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 83 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2005
PRADEEP PURUSHOTTAM THAKKAR ... PETITIONER.
VS.
D.M.ASAWALE ... CONTEMNOR
AND
THE COMMISSIONER & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS.
MR,. S.S.SHAH FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. P.G.LAD AGP FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 3..
MS. A.R.JOSHI FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 5.
MS. V. MIRASHI I/B. SHAH & SANGHAVI FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4.
Coram : S.K.Shah, J.
Date : December 22, 2006
P.C.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides. there is affidavit filed by Sanjay Keshavrao Dhikle, City Survey Officer, in-Charge City Survey Office. There is statement made in paragraph No. 4 that pursuant to the directions of the Court, the actual physical demarcation of the site has been carried in presence of the Petitioner, representative of respondent No.4, representative of B.M.C. and the Sub-Engineer (Development) "T" Ward on 6.11.2006. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further makes out some grievance about the proper demarcation, however, we are not concerned with that in contempt jurisdiction.
Since the demarcation is carried out, there is compliance with the Order of the Court. Therefore, nothing survives in this contempt petition. The contempt petition stands disposed of.
....
[S.K.Shah , J.]