CASE NAME: NOORALI BABUL THANEWALA V K.M.M. SHETTY & ORS
PETITIONER: NOORALI BABUL THANEWALA
RESPONDENT: K.M.M. SHETTY & ORS
BENCH: Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Justice V.Ramswami
CITATION: 1990 Air 464, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 561, 1990 SCC (1) 259 JT 1989(4)573,1989 Scale(2) 1426. R 1990 SC 1881(9)
ACT INCLUDE: Contempt of court of law Act 1961, breach of injection or undertaking given to court.
FACTS: Noorali Babul Thane wala was the owner of Ramakrishna Hindu hotel in Thane.
This
was given to KMM Shetty on rent including ground floor first floor and second
floor. Further KMM Shetty sublated the same property to be PA Dange, VA Dange, Haribhau
shivale and Giri Shetty.
When Noorali Babul asked the possession of the said property back to him. KMM Shetty refused.
Noorali
filed a civil suit in the court of civil judge senior division Thane suit no. 213
in 1970 for the decree of eviction against KMM Shetty and 04 others. The decree
was passed by trial court.
KMM Shetty appealed against the decree of eviction in district court, it got dismissed. He filed writ petition with number 354 in 1975 in Bombay High Court, that got dismissed. He again filed civil appeal number 2628 of 1980 which also dismissed on 18 Aug 1987. Further, he prayed for the stay of disposition, court allowed to continue the possession and carry on the business still 31 Mar 1989 on two conditions that all the occupants or employees will file and undertaking and within 08 weeks and will vacate the property on the expiry of period and deposit the profit until the possession is delivered. KMM Shetty files an undertaking on 05 Oct 1987 with 17 other persons.
Raghuram Shetty filed a civil suit number 301 in Thane civil Court of 1989 saying the decree 213 of 1970 cannot execute him and he demanded permanent injunction against and filed an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 with section 151 of CPC for a temporary injunction on the decree of eviction. The court granted temporary injunction against the degree of eviction.
Noorali filed contempt petition against KMM Shetty and Raghuram Shetty for breach of undertaking, to which Raghuram Shetty replied that Noorali was already knowing the facts that he had took over the business from PA Dange through agreement and Noorali give a Rejoinder that the civil suit was against KMM Shetty and all others involved in it. KMM Shetty gave written statement that he had nothing to do with Raghuram and P A Dange and during the pendency of appeal PA Dange had returned the business to him.
ISSUE: Whether the breach of undertaking given by the tenant amounts to contempt of court of law?
JUDGEMENT:
Supreme Court held first respondent guilty of committing contempt by willful disobedience of the undertaking given by him in the court and convicted him to pay a fine of Rs 500/- , within 04 weeks, failing to which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also directed him to vacate the property including the second respondent Raghuram Shetty back to Noorali and to take the police help if required to vacate the property.
No comments:
Post a Comment