[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Smt. Dhanwanti Om. Raghani vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 26 March, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
10-CP-334-2001.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2001
High Court On Its Own Motion. ...Petitioner
Versus
Shri. Kishore G. Thakur ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4454 OF 1989
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 215 OF 1992
****
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Patil, for Respondent No.2/Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp.
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Rahul Arora i/b Suraj Sulambe for Respondent
No.4/contemnor.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for Respondent/State.
Mr. Nitin Pawar, Court Receiver present.
Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, 2nd Asst. to Court Receiver present.
Mr. Kishore G. Thakur, contemnor present.
****
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 26th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :
1. When the matter is called out Mr. Singh appears and submits
that his attorney has been briefed only yesterday evening by
Respondent No. 4/ Contemnor and that some time be granted to
consider the matter and that the vakalatnama has been filed.
2. There is a report from the Assistant Registrar which indicates
that Advocate Amit Ashok Gharte has filed vakalatnama for Respondent
No. 4 on 20th March 2026 through E-filing. The report of the Assistant
10-CP-334-2001.doc
Registrar is of 25th March 2026 and we are today on 26 th March 2026. If
between yesterday and today it has been filed, the same is not seen. Let
vakalatnama be filed within this week, if not already filed, by the new
Advocate/Attorney on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and instructions also
be taken.
3. This Court had also directed the Registry on 27 th February
2026 in terms of paragraph 14 and 15 thereof to place on record the
affidavit filed pursuant to Order dated 05th June 2008 and also copies of
agreements collected by the Commissioner which have been recorded in
the order dated 05th June 2008, as well as the original or certified copy
of the registered documents that were stated to be filed on behalf of
Respondent No. 4 pursuant to the order dated 05th June 2008.
4. The Assistant Registrar A.O./C.R.A. Branch has placed a note
dated 25th March 2026 before this Court which reads as under.
"Notes:
1) The Court Receiver's Report dated 23/08/2001
already in CP 334 of 2001.
2) Affidavit Pursuant to Order dated June 5, 2008: In
accordance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble
Court on February 27, 2026, a diligent search was
conducted to locate the Affidavit filed pursuant to the
order dated June 5, 2008. However, no endorsement of
the said Affidavit whether as a document tendered in
open Court or filed through the Registry.
10-CP-334-2001.doc
3) Advocate Amit Ashok Gharte has filed V.P. For R.No.4
on 20/03/2026 through E-filing.
4) Copies of Agreements Collected by the
Commissioner: the copies of the agreements were
collected by the Commissioner, there is currently no
endorsement of these documents tendered in the
Hon'ble Court or filed through the Registry."
5. As can be seen as regards the affidavit pursuant to order
dated 05th June 2008, it has been stated that despite a diligent search of
the said affidavit, no endorsement of the said affidavit can be found. As
regards the copies of the agreements collected by the Commissioner, it
has been stated that the agreements were collected by the
Commissioner, but there is currently no endorsement of these
documents tendered in the Court or filed through the Registry. Except
to state the aforesaid, there is nothing else coming from the Registry.
Perhaps for obvious reasons. When affidavits and documents are
referred to in the orders of this Court, the reference could not have been
without any such affidavit or agreements in existence on record. The
Assistant Registrar has perhaps not understood the seriousness of the
matter and also perhaps not applied the mind to the fact that the Order
dated 05th June 2008 of this Court has clearly referred to the said
affidavit and agreements and documents and just to say that there is no
endorsement, is in my view insufficient, inadequate and only to avoid
any further search. The surprising part but actually not so surprising
10-CP-334-2001.doc
part is that none of the Advocates appearing in the matter or their
respective clients also seem to have copies of these documents.
6. The Court Receiver was also directed in paragraph 19 to place
before this court a detailed report with respect to the compliance of the
orders of this Court and also as to the status of the receivership within a
period of three weeks along with all the previous reports. However,
today when the matter is called out, Mr. Pawar, learned Court Receiver,
who is personally present in the Court submits that he has been
informed of the order only today morning. This also goes to show the
desire of certain intervening personalities unknown to this Court thus
far to not let this matter reach its logical conclusion.
7. Mr. Pawar the Court Receiver has sought some time to comply
with the order dated 27th February 2026 and I think it is only fair to do
so.
8. By paragraph 24 of the order dated 27th February 2026, this
Court had directed the Commissioner of the Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation to place a report before this Court with respect to the steps
that have been taken thus far and the steps that would be taken to
comply with the orders of this Court and that also does not seem to
have been done again suggesting the inertia, gripping the stakeholders
that seems to be working in this matter. The reasons are not difficult to
10-CP-334-2001.doc
understand. More than a month has been granted by this Court and the
only compliance of the Order dated 27th February 2026 is that the
Respondent No. 4 is present in Court today. Every other directions are
yet to be complied with.
9. List on 20th April, 2026 on the supplementary board. Let the
directions contained in Order dated 27th February 2026 be positively
complied with by the next date.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
