Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sharad Bapuraoji Deshmukh vs Sunil Manoharrao Deshmukh And 14 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3693 Bom

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3693 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2021

Bombay High Court
Sharad Bapuraoji Deshmukh vs Sunil Manoharrao Deshmukh And 14 ... on 26 February, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
218-J-CPL-3-06                                                        1/5



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                     CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.3 OF 2006
                                   IN
                    CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2005
                                   IN
                    WRIT PETITION NO.2280 OF 2003 (D)


Sharad s/o Bapuraoji Deshmukh
aged about 50 years, resident of
Vaishali Nagar, Sewagram Road,
Wardha Tahsil and Dist. Wardha                          ... Appellant

-vs-

1. Sunil s/o Manoharrao Deshmukh,
   aged 41 years, resident c/o N. M. Jagtap,
   State Bank Colony, Bachelor Road, Wardha
   Tahsil and District Wardha

2. The Yeshwant Education Society,
   Ramnagar, Wardha, Thr. Its President
   Vishwasraoji Dashrath Wadafale

3. Vishwasrao Dashrath Wadafale,
   President, The Yeshwant Education Society,
   Wardha, Opposite Nagar Parishad,
   Hospital Road, Wardha,
   Tahsil and District Wardha

4. Gunwant Janardhan Wakade,
   Vice-President, The Yeshwant Education
   Society Wardha, Guru Colony,
   East Station Wardha, Tahsil and District Wardha

5. Manohar Ramchandrarao Nishane,
   Secretary, The Yeshwant Education
   Society Wardha, Kejaji Chowk, Wardha
   Tahsil and District Wardha

6. Narendra Gopaldas Thute,
   Joint Secretary, The Yeshwant Education
   Society, Gurukul Colony,
   Near East Station, Wardha,
   Tahsil and District Wardha
 218-J-CPL-3-06                                                       2/5



7. Madhukar Bapuraoji Bobhate,
   Treasurer, The Yeshwant Education
   Society Wardha, Gond Plot, Opposite
   Sukhakarta Medical, Wardha,
   Tahsil and District Wardha

8. Ashok Bhauraoji Zoting,
   Director, The Yeshwant Education
   Society, Pradhyapak Colony, Nandori Road,
   Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha

9. Madhukar Mahadeorao Ladhi,
   Director, The Yeshwant Education
   Society, Yeshwant Adhyapak Vidyalaya,
   Ramnagar, Wardha, Tahsil and District Wardha

10. Narayan Shamraoji Satarkar,
    Director, The Yeshwant Education
    Society Pradhyapak Colony, Nandori Road,
    Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha

11. Pramod Jagannathrao Dhange,
    Director, The Yeshwant Education
    Society, Bhamtipura, Wardha,
    Tahsil and District Wardha

12. Vasant Pandharinath Khadse,
    Director, The Yeshwant Education
    Society, Behind Bidkar College, Hinganghat
    Tahsil Hinganghat, District Wardha

13. Vithal Tulsiramji Kambalkar,
    Director, The Yeshwant Education
    Society, Behind Ramnagar, Somnathe
    Layout, Wardha, Tahsil and District Wardha

14. Suchita Bhanudasji Kanhalkar,
    Director, The Yeshwant Education
    Society, c.o Yeshwant Adhyapak Vidyalay,
    Ramnagar, Wardha, Tahsil and District Wardha

15. Mohan Y. Mohadure,
    Principal, The Yeshwant Junior College of
    Education, Ramnagar, Wardha                      ... Respondents
 218-J-CPL-3-06                                                        3/5


Shri J. S. Mokadam, Advocate for appellant.
Shri S. V. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent No.1.

           CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : February 26, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

In writ petition No.2280/2003 this Court by order dated

26/02/2004 had directed the Management to pay arrears of salary to

the petitioners in the writ petition. Since that direction was not

complied with, the original petitioners filed Contempt Petition

No.5/2005. In the contempt petition the petitioners impleaded 16

respondents. On 08/02/2005 the Court issued notice only to the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the contempt petition. The present appellant

was arrayed as respondent No.8 in the said contempt petition.

Thereafter on 08/07/2005 the Court proceeded to direct attachment of

personal properties of the respondents in the contempt petition. The

appellant-respondent No.8 in the said contempt petition has challenged

the aforesaid order on the ground that the appellant was not noticed in

the contempt petition and hence there was no occasion to direct

attachment of his personal properties.

2. Shri J. Mokadam, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that since the Court had not issued any notice in the contempt petition

to the present appellant there was no occasion for the petitioner to take 218-J-CPL-3-06 4/5

steps to comply with the directions issued earlier. He submits that in

the contempt petition notice was issued only to the President and Vice

President of the Education Society. In absence of any such notice to

the appellant, the property of the appellant could not have been

attached.

3. Shri S. V. Sohoni, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-

original petitioner submits that the appellant was one of the

respondents in the contempt petition and it was his duty to comply with

the directions issued in the writ petition. Though the Court did not

issue notice to the appellant his property was rightly attached as the

said order remained to be implemented.

4. On perusal of the records of Contempt Petition No.5/2005 it

is clear that the Court on 08/02/2005 issued notice only to respondent

Nos.2 and 3 in the contempt petition. It is undisputed that the

appellant is respondent No.8 in the contempt petition. In absence of

any such notice the appellant did not have an opportunity to appear in

the contempt petition and take further steps to contest the same. It is

informed that the said contempt petition is still pending in view of the

interim order passed in the present appeal. Since no notice was issued

to the present appellant and he was not heard before the drastic order 218-J-CPL-3-06 5/5

dated 08/07/2005 attaching the private properties of the respondents

came to be passed, the said order only to the extent of the present

appellant is liable to be set aside.

5. Accordingly we direct that the order dated 08/07/2005

passed in Contempt Petition No.05/2005 shall not operate against the

present appellant it having been passed without noticing him.

Contempt Appeal No.3/2006 is accordingly allowed. It is made clear

that we have not examined the correctness of the order dated

08/07/2005 to the extent the properties of the original respondent

Nos.2 and 3 have been attached. It is open for the respondent Nos.1-

contempt petitioner to pursue the contempt petition before the learned

Single Judge against the present appellants in accordance with law.

All points are kept open.

                                JUDGE                    JUDGE

             Digitally signed
             by Asmita
Asmita       Bhandakkar
Bhandakkar   Date: 2021.03.03
             15:16:37 +0530




Asmita
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter