Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANJULA CHELLUR, SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, A.S. OKA, S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
HIGH COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION - Appellant
Vs.
KETAN TIRODKAR - Respondent
SUO MOTU Contempt Petition No.1 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2017
Notice - Contempt Proceedings - Service of Notice - Presence of Respondent - Court directed the Commissioner of Police to ensure personal service of notice on the respondent and directed the advocate to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was not available at the address for service of notice, and an advocate informed the police that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and was out of station. The notice was returned unserved. The reply affidavit of the respondent, notarized and dated 27th March 2017, was presented by a person who was not the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court directed the Commissioner of Police to ensure personal service of notice on the respondent and directed the advocate to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing. The prosecutor was also directed to ensure compliance with previous directions.
Issues: Service of notice in Contempt Proceedings, Presence of Respondent, Compliance with Court directions
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of personal service of notice in Contempt Proceedings and the need for strict compliance with its directions.
Final Decision: The case was adjourned to 16th June 2017 at 4.30 p.m. with directions for personal service of notice on the respondent and compliance with previous directions.
1. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP is present. Respondent absent.
2. Registry has placed note that notice was tried to be served on the respondent. However, he was not available at the address. Subsequently, on 27th March 2017, one Advocate Sandesh Sawant appeared before the concerned police and informed that the respondent is aware of the proceedings and he is out of station. The notice has returned unserved.
3. Today, when the matter is called out, Smt. Vichare from the Criminal Application Branch is before us and she placed on record the reply affidavit of the respondent which is notarized and it is dated 27th March 2017. The presentation form shows that party in person was present. However, signature of person appearing on affidavit shows name of one S.S. Sawant, in all probability, Mr. Sandesh Sawant along with his mobile number. Since the proceedings being Contempt proceedings, we direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to see that notice is served on the respondent in person so as to secure his presence before the Court. Mr. Sandesh Sawant whose mobile number is furnished to the office is also directed to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
4. In the meanwhile, we direct the learned Prosecutor who is present before the Court to see that directions at paragraph no.6 of the order dated 22nd February 2017 are strictly complied with.
5. Stand over to 16th June 2017 at 4.30 p.m.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
