Rita Dilip Katira vs Sunil Meshram The Recovery ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7862 Bom

                                                                  16 cp-st-9417-21.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CONTEMPT PETITION (ST) NO. 9417 OF 2021.

      Rita Dilip Katira                                 ..Petitioner
                  v/s.

      Sunil Meshram & Ors.                       ..Respondents


      Mr. Ram Upadhyay i/b. Law Competere Consultus for the
      Petitioner/s.
      Ms. Tejasvi Dalvi for the Respondent No.3.

                                CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : JUNE 14, 2021.

P.C.

1. The Petitioner, who was Plaintiff No.4A in Civil Suit No.1186

of 1979 has filed this Contempt Petition alleging contempt of order

dated 23.08.2007.

2. By order dated 23.08.2007, this Court had set aside the

judgment and order dated 30.03.2001 and 29.11.2000 passed in

Civil Suit No.1186 of 1979, and the suit was remitted back to the

Single Judge for fresh trial in accordance with law. The Division

Bench had appointed a Court Receiver in respect of the suit

premises, who was to take symbolic possession of the premises

and appoint Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.1186 of 1979 as agent of the

pps 1 of 3

16 cp-st-9417-21.doc

Receiver.

3. Subsequently, in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the

suit came to be transferred to the City Civil Court. The Suit was

decreed by judgment and decree dated 4.12.2015, whereby

Balkrishna Shetty, the Defendant in the suit was directed to deliver

possession of the suit shop along with business to the Plaintiffs,

who were to continue their possession in the suit shops and the

business as owners and not as agents of the Court Receiver, after

the Receiver was discharged.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent

No.3 through its Recovery Officer has taken physical possession of

the suit property without seeking permission of the Court Receiver.

He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Everest Coal

Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar LAWS (SC)1977-9-1,

wherein the Apex Court had held that when the Court puts the

Receiver in possession of the property, the property comes under

Court custody, the Receiver being merely an officer or agent of the

Court. Any obstruction or interference with the Court's possession

sounds in contempt of that court.

5. The records reveal that the Plaintiff No.2-Tarulata Thakkar

pps 2 of 3

16 cp-st-9417-21.doc

had availed loan from the Respondent No.3- Central Bank of India.

Proceedings were initiated against her before the DRT and the

property which was the subject matter of the suit was attached by

DRT prior to order dated 23.08.2007. The Respondent No.3

Bank was not a party to the Suit. No order was operating against

the bank and the Respondent No.3 was not intimated about the

order dated 23.08.2007. The Respondent No.3 Bank, took

possession of the suit premises and sold the same in e-auction, in

accordance with the provisions of the DRT Act.

6. In my considered view, this does not amount to willful

breach or disobedience of the order. Hence, no case is made out.

Contempt Petition stands dismissed.

                                        (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)




pps                                                                              3 of 3