Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Mahendra Builders, filed a contempt petition alleging that respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original defendants) breached an injunction order dated 24th June 1993 passed by the Bombay High Court. The order restrained the defendants from transferring or parting with possession of the suit premises except as permissible under the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner claimed that in the year 2000, the respondents created third-party interest in the suit property by executing a registered Assignment Deed, which the petitioner discovered only after searching the Register of the Registrar of Assurance. The court noted that the petitioner's awareness of the deed was vaguely stated in the memo and no material facts were provided even in the affidavit. The court confined the petition to the allegation of civil contempt, leaving open the remedy for criminal contempt. After hearing counsel for all parties, the court found that the petitioner failed to provide specific details or material facts to substantiate the alleged breach. Consequently, the court dismissed the contempt petition for lack of specific allegations.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Breach of Injunction - Allegation of creation of third-party interest in suit property in 2000 despite injunction order dated 24th June 1993 - Petitioner vaguely stated awareness of registered Assignment Deed but provided no material facts or particulars in the memo or affidavit - Held that vague allegations without specific details are insufficient to establish civil contempt (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by breaching the injunction order dated 24th June 1993 restraining them from transferring or parting with possession of the suit premises.
Final Decision
Contempt petition dismissed for lack of specific allegations and material facts to establish breach of injunction.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- breach of injunction
- civil contempt
- criminal contempt
- Bombay Rent Act
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (03) 29
Contempt Petition No.282 of 2002
Mr. G.S. Godbole with Avinash Joshi i/b. Mulla & Mulla for petitioners; Mr. Naushad Engineer & Ms. S.T. Shaikh i/b S.K. Srivastav for respondent No.1; Mr. Jai Chinoy with Sanjay Jain i/b. Zohair & Co. for respondent Nos.2 to 4
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging breach of injunction order
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought action for civil contempt against respondents for violating injunction order dated 24th June 1993
Filing Reason
Alleged creation of third-party interest in suit property by respondents in 2000 despite injunction
Previous Decisions
Injunction order dated 24th June 1993 restraining defendants from transferring or parting with possession of suit premises except as per Bombay Rent Act
Issues
Whether the respondents committed civil contempt by breaching the injunction order dated 24th June 1993
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondents created third-party interest in suit property in 2000 by executing a registered Assignment Deed, violating the injunction.
Respondents likely contested the allegations, though specific arguments not detailed in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
Vague allegations without material facts or specific details are insufficient to establish civil contempt for breach of an injunction order.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has approached this court on the allegation that the respondent Nos.2 and 3/original defendants have created third party interest in the suit property inspite of aforesaid injunction.
the case of the petitioner that he became aware of registered Assignment Deed is only vaguely stated in the memo but no material facts are provided even in the affidavit
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.282 of 2002 alleging breach of injunction order dated 24th June 1993. The court heard counsel and perused pleadings, noting that the petitioner confined the petition to civil contempt allegations. The court dismissed the petition for lack of specific allegations.
Acts & Sections
