Case Note & Summary
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay filed a contempt petition against M/s. Sushanku Builders Pvt. Ltd. and its director, alleging willful disobedience of an order passed by the Bombay High Court in Original Application No. 1329 of 1992, which was confirmed in First Appeal No. 105 of 1994. The Corporation claimed that despite the order, the respondents continued construction activity in violation of the court's order. The contempt petition was filed in 1996. Upon perusal of the record, the court noted that only a show cause notice was issued on 12.6.1996, and later a notice was issued on 22.7.1996 returnable on 2.9.1996. On 11.9.1996, an order of 'await service' was passed. Thereafter, no further order was passed taking cognizance of the contempt petition by granting rule or any other mode. The court observed that without taking cognizance and issuing rule, the contempt proceedings could not continue. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition for lack of cognizance, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Cognizance - Requirement of Rule - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court held that merely issuing a show cause notice does not amount to taking cognizance of the contempt petition; the court must grant rule or pass an order of cognizance for proceedings to continue. Since no such order was passed, the petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contempt petition can proceed when the court has not taken cognizance and granted rule, and only a show cause notice was issued.
Final Decision
Contempt Petition No. 165 of 1996 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Cognizance
- Rule
- Show Cause Notice
- Dismissal for Default
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 177
Contempt Petition No. 165 of 1996
Mr. A.J. Bhor for Petitioner, Mr. M.K. Nesari for Respondent
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
M/s. Sushanku Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Shri. Ashok Gupta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of court order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought punishment of respondents for contempt of court.
Filing Reason
Alleged violation of order dated 30.4.1994 in First Appeal No. 105 of 1994.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 30.4.1994 in Civil Application No. 2570 of 1994 partly allowed the application in terms of order dated 11.2.1992 in A.O. No. 1329 of 1992.
Issues
Whether the contempt petition was maintainable when no cognizance was taken by granting rule.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondents continued construction in violation of court order.
Respondent's arguments not recorded as petition dismissed for lack of cognizance.
Ratio Decidendi
A contempt petition cannot proceed unless the court takes cognizance and grants rule; mere issuance of a show cause notice does not suffice.
Judgment Excerpts
Though the contempt petition appeared on the final hearing board, a perusal of the farad annexed indicates that only show cause notice was issued by order dated 12.6.96...
thereafter, there is no order of taking cognizance of this contempt petition by granting Rule or by any other mode...
In the absence of any order taking cognizance of the contempt petition, the same cannot be continued and is required to be dismissed.
Procedural History
Contempt petition filed in 1996. Show cause notice issued on 12.6.1996. Notice issued on 22.7.1996 returnable on 2.9.1996. On 11.9.1996, order of 'await service' passed. No further order of cognizance. Petition dismissed on 11.2.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
