Ram Gopal Waghdhare Vs. Sudhir Ram Waghdhare and ors.

.....not in all cases would the high court exercise its powers under the contempt of courts act to deal with the breach of an injunction order. but there may be cases where exercise of the said powers would be warranted. it would obviously depend on the facts of each case. it cannot be the intention of the legislature to say that in a gross case of contempt of an injunction order the high court would be powerless to take action for contempt in the case on hand the respondents have shown gross disregard for the order of the city civil court and also shown disrespect to the orders of the high court. - bombay stamp act, 1958. schedule 1, article 36: [y.r. meena, cj & d.a. mehta & a.s. dave, jj] deed of mortgage liability to pay stamp duty held, any instruments in respect of transactions, relating to loans and advances, loans and mortgages, cash credit or overdraft bonds, agreements of pawn or pledge and letters of hypothecation executed by farmers for agricultural and land development purposes in favour of all commercial bank etc. are entitled to remission of entire duty chargeable under the stamp act with effect on and from 1.4.1979 under government notification dated 23.3.1979. thus, where loan was granted by bank of india under agricultural finance scheme towards purchase of air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories. use of the air compressors, drilling rods and other accessories in case of applicant who is a farmer can only be for purpose of drilling a bore-well for purpose of irrigation in process of carrying on agricultural activities. thus, it is apparent that loan was availed of by applicant-farmer for agricultural and land development purposes because a bore-well would go to increase the utility of agricultural land by ensuring round the year irrigation. the instrument in question would therefore fall within scope of complete remission granted to instrument of mortgage under government notification dated 23.3.1979 and hence not liable to stamp duty.....order1. respondents nos. 1 and 2 are found guilty of having committed contempt of the order of the city civil court dated 13.12.1996 passed on notice of motion no. 3493 of 1996 in s.c. suit no. 3829 of 1996 and the high courts order dated 5.5.1997 passed on appeal from order no. 96 of 1997, respondents nos. 1 and 2 are therefore, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each and to pay a fine of rs. 2000/- each.2. respondents nos. 3 and 4 are also found guilty of contempt however in view of the apology tendered by them and in view of the affidavit filed by them that they are not staying in the suit premises the contempt notice against them is discharged.3. contempt notice issued against respondent no. 5 is discharged.4. the order of sentence of respondents nos. 1 and 2 shall remain suspended for a period of eight months from today on the request of the learned counsel for respondents nos. 1 and 2. after the period of eight months the suspension shall automatically be lifted and the order of sentence shall operate from that date.at this stage mr. naphade prays that the respondents no. 1 and 2 should file an affidavit slating that they have removed themselves from the suit premises on the date mentioned in the said affidavit and they undertake that they will not enter into the suit premises. the request is reasonable. respondents nos. 1 and 2 shall file an affidavit to this effect within the said stipulated period of eight months.the contempt petition is disposed of in the aforesaid term.certified copy expedited.