Case Note & Summary
The case involved two writ petitions arising from the management of Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., a cooperative society. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 sought directions to declare an election programme, restrain the appointment of an administrative board, and prevent the board from disposing of the society's immovable property. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1175 of 2009 challenged the resolution dated 3 December 2008 allotting shops and sought its setting aside, an enquiry, reallotment, and reservation of 10% shops for educated unemployed persons. On 27 January 2009, an ad interim order was passed restraining the administrative board from disposing of the society's immovable property. Despite the order, the administrative board proceeded to alienate shops and other property. Respondent No.15 (the society's Manager) filed an affidavit on 20 April 2009, claiming that the property was not disposed of but given on hire for a period not exceeding three years. The court found this statement to be wilfully false as the property had in fact been transferred. By an order dated 2 September 2009, a Division Bench (B.R. Gavai and N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) observed that the respondents had shown total disrespect to court orders and the administration of justice, describing their attitude as 'Might is Right'. Notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 8 and 15 to show cause why contempt and perjury proceedings should not be taken. On 26 April 2010, another Division Bench (Naresh H. Patil and A.V. Potdar, JJ.) directed that cognizance of contempt be taken and notices be issued to Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and 15 under the Contempt of Courts Act, directing them to appear before the appropriate court assigned with contempt petitions. The judgment by Naresh H. Patil and K.K. Tated, JJ. on 23 July 2010 made the rule returnable forthwith, effectively continuing the proceedings while initiating contempt action. The judgment did not finally dispose of the writ petitions but focused on the contemptuous conduct and the false affidavit, emphasizing the need to uphold the authority of the court and the administration of justice.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court – Violation of Interim Orders – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The court directed cognizance and issuance of notices to respondents who disposed of cooperative society property despite an ad interim injunction granted on 27-01-2009, observing that their conduct showed 'Might is Right' attitude and disrespect to court – Held that prima facie contempt was committed (Paras 4-6).
B) Criminal Law – Perjury – Section 192, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Respondent No.15 (Manager) filed an affidavit falsely stating that society property was not disposed of but only given on hire, which the court found was knowingly false; notice issued to show cause why perjury proceedings should not be initiated (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by disposing of property in violation of the interim order dated 27-01-2009; whether respondent no.15 committed perjury by filing a false affidavit; whether directions should be issued for holding elections and preventing further disposal of society property.
Final Decision
The court directed that cognizance of contempt be taken and notices be issued to Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and 15 under the Contempt of Courts Act. They were directed to appear before the appropriate court for contempt proceedings. Rule was made returnable forthwith. The writ petitions remained pending for final adjudication on other prayers.
Law Points
- contempt of court
- perjury
- false affidavit
- violation of interim order
- cooperative society
- administrative board
- might is right
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 18
Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008; Writ Petition No.1175 of 2009
Naresh H. Patil, K.K. Tated
P.D. Bachate, A.B. Girase for Petitioner in WP 7312/2008; V.D. Salunke, S.K. Chavan for Petitioner in WP 1175/2009; R.P. Phatke for Respondent Nos. 1-5 in WP 7312 and Nos. 1-4 in WP 1175; E.P. Sawant, M.P. Kale for Respondent Nos. 6 & 15 in WP 7312 and Nos. 6A-6D in WP 1175; S.V. Mundhe for Respondent No.7 in WP 7312; P.R. Patil for Respondent Nos. 8-11 in WP 7312; R.N. Dhorde, Sanjay Mundhe for Respondent Nos. 14, 16-22, 34-36 in WP 7312 and Nos. 11, 19 in WP 1175; V.D. Hon for Respondent Nos. 24-27, 29-32 in WP 7312
Shri. Vasant s/o Rangnath Chorghade; Adarsha Sukshikshit Berojgar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging actions of the administrative board of a cooperative society and seeking directions for elections, prevention of property disposal, and reallotment of shops; contempt of court proceedings for violation of interim orders.
Remedy Sought
In WP 7312/2008: directions to declare election programme, restrain administrative board appointment, and prevent disposal of society property; in WP 1175/2009: setting aside shop allotment resolution, enquiry, reallotment with 10% reservation for educated unemployed.
Filing Reason
Alleged illegal disposal of society property and improper shop allotments by the administrative board in violation of cooperative principles and court orders.
Previous Decisions
On 27-01-2009, ad interim relief granted restraining disposal of property; on 02-09-2009, notices issued for contempt and perjury against respondents; on 26-04-2010, direction to take cognizance of contempt and issue notices.
Issues
Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by disposing of property in violation of the interim order dated 27-01-2009
Whether respondent no.15 committed perjury by filing a false affidavit regarding disposal of property
Whether directions should be issued for holding elections and preventing further disposal of society property
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the administrative board's disposal of property violated the court's interim order, demonstrating 'Might is Right' attitude, and that the Manager's affidavit was knowingly false.
Respondents' stand that property was not disposed of but given on hire was rejected as false; court found total disregard to court orders.
Judgment Excerpts
The attitude of the respondent Nos.6/15 and 8 appears to be 'Might is Right'. The said act shows total disrespect and disregard to the orders passed by this Court and to the institution of administration of justice.
Not only this, but the respondent No.15 also had an audacity to file a false affidavit before this Court. Knowing very well that the property belonging to the respondent No.6 is transferred in utter disregard and in violation of the orders passed by this Court, he has an audacity to say in the affidavit filed on 20th April, 2009 that the property belonging to the respondent No.6 is not disposed of and that it will be put on hire for a period not exceeding 3 years. The said averment is totally false to the knowledge of the respondent No.15.
By an order dated 26th April, 2010 the Division Bench of this Court ( Coram: Naresh H. Patil and A.V. Potdar, JJ. ) directed to take cognizance of the contempt and issue notices to Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and 15 in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed; on 27-01-2009, notices issued and ad interim relief granted restraining disposal of society property; on 02-09-2009, Division Bench noted violation and issued notices for contempt and perjury against respondent nos. 8 and 15; on 26-04-2010, another Division Bench directed taking cognizance of contempt and issuing notices to respondent nos. 8 to 12 and 15 under Contempt of Courts Act; matter adjourned from time to time; Rule made returnable forthwith on 23-07-2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 192
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 340
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
