Back
2004 Supreme(SC) 611
2004(4) Supreme 302
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.N. Variava & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Mrs. Mehar Rusi Dalal -Petitioner
versus
T.K. Banerjee & Ors. -Respondents
Contempt Petition No. 162 of 1998
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14709 of 1997
Decided on 5-5-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, B.S. Bhesania, Sanjay R. Hegde, Hemant Shah, U.J. Makhija, Anil K. Misra, Ms. Mahalaxmi Pavani, Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents : N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Pallav Shishodia, D.N. Mishra, Hemant Sharma, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere filing a proceedings in Court of law and applying to Court that payment may not be made would not amount to breach of undertaking to attract contempt of Court.
Headnote:Contempt of Court-Mere filing of proceedings in Court and applying to Court that payment may not be made would not amount to breach of undertaking-No reason to punish for contempt. (Para 2)
JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.-We have heard parties.
In our view, every party has a right to move a Court of Law for adjudication of his rights. Mere filing of proceedings in a Court of Law and applying to a Court of Law that the payment may not be made would not amount to breach of undertaking. We therefore see no reason to punish for contempt. The contempt notice will stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
Contempt notice discharged.
**************
00024
00025
