Supreme Court of India
BHATTAD LEASING AND FINANCE CO. LTD. versus MR. NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 30 October 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 524 · 1995 INSC 641
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 525, margin B
Having heard all the counsel for both the parties in extenso and perusing relevant material on .record, ultimately we conclude that this is not a case fit for convicting respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 for violation of the status quo order made by the High Court on May 30, 1994. No case of contempt arises against respondents Nos. I to 4. Though 6th respondent was served.with the notice directing him to be present, he was not present. Had we been informed at the beginning, we would have taken appropriate steps for his presence by non-bailable warrants. But at the_ end of the arguments, we were informed of it. We strongly condemn his conduct as unbecoming of a responsible citizen.
p. 525, margin B
However, these facts which emerged at the hearing are relevant facts to be considered for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition on merits. Since the writ petition is pending, we decline to express any opinion on the facts and circumstances and on merits. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
p. 525, margin D
However, the High Court is requested to disposed of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
p. 525, margin E
The Receiver's report disclosed that possession of 39000 sq. mis. of land was given by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the East West Development Company. In that behalf since the controversy was not focussed in the High Court and the matter has come to light only through the report submitted by the Court Receiver after the contempt proceedings were initiated, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action according to law. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 525, margin F