Tenants' Association and Ors. vs. Narayan Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Ors.

Tenants' Association and Ors. vs Narayan Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 29, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/915536

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/915536
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Patherya, J.
Decided On: Mar 29, 2011
Case Number: CC No. 210 of 2009.
Subject: Contempt of Court

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Aftab Alam ; R.M. Lodha, JJ.] The appellant- University on March 1, 1996 issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar by direct recruitment. The minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as Assistant Registrar was as under:-Respondent No.1, who was an employee...

Key legal issue: Contempt of Court

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tenants' Association and Ors.

Advocate Ms.Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Adv.

Respondent

Narayan Kumar Bhojnagarwala and Ors.

Advocate Mr.Reetobroto Mitra; Mr. S. S. Banerjee; Mr. R. Sarkar, Advs.

Excerpt

.....it was, accordingly, submitted that respondent no.1 was ineligible for appointment to the post of assistant registrar. the division bench found and held that respondent no.1 was not eligible to be considered for the post of deputy registrar and, hence, rejected his case in so far that post is concerned. coming, however, to the post of assistant registrar, the division bench took the view that selection committee had not assigned any reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above respondent no.1 in the select list. no material has been produced before us to show that it is the selection committee which upon assessment of merit of the appellant and respondent nos. 4 and 5, found appellant was less meritorious than the respondent nos. 4 and 5. in the first place the division bench overlooked that according to the statutory eligibility criterion only a section officer or a p.a.-cum-stenographer was eligible to be considered for appointment as assistant registrar and respondent no.1 was a head assistant. the division bench seems to have overlooked that while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were at ranks iv and v in the select list, respondent no.1 was at rank xiii and by brining him at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the division bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven candidates who figured in between from rank vi to xii and who were above respondent no.1......showing cause why no rule should be issued it has been specifically pleaded that besides payment of maintenance charges a sum of rs.100/- was being paid for parking of the motorcycles. it was on this basis that the rule was issued. this day no new fact has been disclosed by the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 to evidence compliance of the orders dated 15th september, 2009 and 17th september, 2009. 3. in fact plea of non-demarcation of the common areas has been pleaded. as the said premises is still in the possession of the landlords being the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 and non-recognition of the petitioner by the said landlords, the entire premises is with the landlords and therefore, the question of demarcating common areas does not arise for the purposes of this application. 4. in fact in g.a.205 of 2010 demarcation of the common areas was sought and such application has been dismissed by order dated 10th march, 2011. as no explanation has been given for discharge of the rule and no case made out the rule is confirmed as against the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6. as the said alleged contemnors/ respondents are continuing to disobey the order dated 15th september, 2009 so also the order dated 22nd october, 2009 with impunity, punishment is imposed by directing each of the contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 to be present in court from 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. for a week starting from 30th march, 2011. 5. as regards the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 an assurance was given that no obstruction will be caused in the common areas nor motorcycles will be allowed to be parked thereat. in the affidavit filed to the rule the acceptance of rs.100/- is not disputed. in fact the contemnors/respondents have adopted the averments made in the affidavit filed earlier. it is not in dispute that the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 are not landlords of the said premises. it is also not disputed that the validity of the petitioner is not accepted by.....

Full Judgment

1. By order dated 21st September, 2010 a Rule was issued. Affidavits have been filed in answer to such Rule. From a reading of the affidavit filed by the occupants, namely, the respondent nos.5 and 6 the only ground on which the maintainability of the contempt application has been challenged is the false story of parking of no vehicles in front of the lift or common areas and no ascertainment of the common areas of the said premises.

2. On 17th November, 2009 an undertaking was given by the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 that no motorcycle would be parked in the common areas of the said building. Inspires thereof motorcycles have been parked and in the affidavit filed by the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 showing cause why no Rule should be issued it has been specifically pleaded that besides payment of maintenance charges a sum of Rs.100/- was being paid for parking of the motorcycles. It was on this basis that the Rule was issued. This day no new fact has been disclosed by the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 to evidence compliance of the orders dated 15th September, 2009 and 17th September, 2009.

3. In fact plea of non-demarcation of the common areas has been pleaded. As the said premises is still in the possession of the landlords being the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 and non-recognition of the petitioner by the said landlords, the entire premises is with the landlords and therefore, the question of demarcating common areas does not arise for the purposes of this application.

4. In fact in G.A.205 of 2010 demarcation of the common areas was sought and such application has been dismissed by order dated 10th March, 2011. As no explanation has been given for discharge of the Rule and no case made out the Rule is confirmed as against the alleged contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6. As the said alleged contemnors/ respondents are continuing to disobey the order dated 15th September, 2009 so also the order dated 22nd October, 2009 with impunity, punishment is imposed by directing each of the contemnor/respondent nos.5 and 6 to be present in Court from 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. for a week starting from 30th March, 2011.

5. As regards the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 an assurance was given that no obstruction will be caused in the common areas nor motorcycles will be allowed to be parked thereat. In the affidavit filed to the Rule the acceptance of Rs.100/- is not disputed. In fact the contemnors/respondents have adopted the averments made in the affidavit filed earlier. It is not in dispute that the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 are not landlords of the said premises. It is also not disputed that the validity of the petitioner is not accepted by the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4. There has to be someone to manage the said premises and according to the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 they are entitled to manage the said premises. This would also include therefore management of the common areas. If this was not so, no assurance would have been given as recorded in the order dated 29th October, 2009. In fact no appeal has been filed from the said order dated 29th October, 2009 nor from the order dated 21st September, 2010 whereby a Rule was issued against the contemnors/respondents.

6. In view of the acceptance of the said orders and dismissal of G.A.205 of 2010 the explanation sought to be given for discharge of the Rule cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Rule issued against the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 is confirmed and all that remains to be done is imposition of punishment under Section 12 of the 1971 Act. Accordingly, the contemnor/respondent nos.1 to 4 are punished by being directed to be present in Court from 10.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. for seven days starting from 30th March, 2011. With the aforesaid direction this application is disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a Photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2011 Same Parties Tenants' Association and Ors. vs Narayan Kumar Bhojnagarwala ... Same Subject Contempt of Court Same Judge Patherya, J.

Contempt of Court