Bombay High Court
M/S Asha Inst. Of Medical Science ... vs Shri B.T. Yengade, Registrar ... on 12 October, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
Order 3 cp 259-2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.259/2021
M/s Asha Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing
Director Dr. Rajendra Rambabu Agrawal.
Vs.
Shri B.T. Yengade, Registrar (Legal), State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Circuit
Bench, Nagpur and another.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R.R. Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2021.
Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. This
Contempt Petition had arisen due to non-compliance of the
order dated 03/12/2020 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Nagpur on an application below Exhibit-5
filed in Special Civil Suit No.543/2017. It was a suit filed for
recovery of the costs of new machine purchased by the
petitioner. It was filed against the supplier of that
machine/defendant.
2. Though the suit is pending before the Civil Court,
the non-compliance alleged is against learned Registrar of
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench at
Nagpur. The learned Registrar refused to transfer the amount
of Rs.10,50,000/- deposited with them by the defendant. The
letter written by learned Registrar addressed to the Civil
Court is filed on record. The reason given for non transfer is
"recommended format for transfer is not available".
Order 3 cp 259-2021
3. As that amount is deposited with State
Commission, Civil Court has passed that order. The defendant
of that suit deposited that amount as he had preferred an
appeal before the State Commission. It was preferred against
the judgment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Nagpur. The present defendant was asked to
pay Rs.10,50,000/- to present petitioner. The State
Commissioner has reversed that order and complaint was
dismissed as the present petitioner was held not being
consumer.
4. It is submitted that there is no order of return of
that amount while disposing of the appeal.
5. In fact, the issues ought to have been resolved on
the administrative level. However, the petitioner is aggrieved
because the order of Civil Court is not been complied with. It
is not been complied in spite of even joint pursis filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff and defendant before the State
Commission on 04/02/2021. So, this Court feels that the
office of which learned Registrar is the head of administrative
side ought to have resolved the issue. Unfortunately, it has
not been resolved. Hence, issue notice before admission to
respondent no.1 only. Notice to respondent no.2 not issued as
he has co-operated the petitioner by filing joint pursis before
the State Commission.
Matter be kept in the week starting from
29/11/2021.
JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
