Back
LIC Housing Finance: Bombay HC Holds Doctor in Contempt for Defying Vacate Order
The has delivered a stern message to medical professionals, ruling that doctors cannot use patient care as a shield to defy court orders. In a filed by , a division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat found the respondents—doctors operating a hospital on secured property—in of a previous vacate order. The court described their conduct as "" and directed the immediate shifting of all patients to other facilities by .
Background of the Dispute
The case stemmed from a writ petition filed by LIC Housing Finance against Shrirang Sadashiv Gokhale and another respondent, who had given an before the to vacate the subject property—a hospital—within a stipulated period. When the respondents failed to comply, LIC Housing Finance approached the High Court, which on , dismissed the writ petition but extended time for the respondents to abide by their and shift patients. The court also directed the to proceed with the respondents' appeal.
However, instead of complying, the respondents admitted 52 new patients into the hospital, prompting LIC Housing Finance to file a . On , the High Court issued notice and expressly directed the respondents not to admit any further patients. Despite this specific order, the respondents continued to admit new patients, leading to the present proceedings.
Arguments and the Court's Rejection
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, , argued that the respondents' actions amounted to , as they had repeatedly flouted the court's directions. The respondents' counsel, , tendered an and sought to justify the admissions by claiming that some patients required immediate attention and could not be refused treatment.
The court found this explanation "totally unacceptable." It observed that the hospital was not the only medical facility in Pune, and patients could have been admitted elsewhere. The bench sharply remarked,
"The respondents seem to be indicating that if the alleged contemnors are doctors, they can be spared of consequences of
of the order of this Court, only on the ground that they found it appropriate to admit patients in the hospital, in the teeth of
given to the competent tribunal and specific order passed by this Court."
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court emphasized the paramount importance of respecting judicial orders and the
. In a powerful observation, it stated:
"There has to be respect for the
and
. Otherwise, the whole edifice on which the structure of justice is based, will come crumbling down."
The judges also noted that the respondents had not taken any steps to advance their appeal before the DRAT, instead choosing to defiantly and repeatedly disobey the court's orders. This conduct, the court held, warranted firm action.
The Decision and Its Implications
Directing the respondents to ensure that all patients currently admitted in the hospital are properly shifted to other facilities on or before , the court made it clear that it would "not brook any violation" of this direction. The petition has been listed for further directions on .
The ruling serves as a strong precedent, underscoring that professional obligations—such as a doctor's duty to treat patients—cannot override compliance with judicial orders. It reinforces the principle that no individual, regardless of their profession, is above the law. The decision also sends a clear signal to litigants that undertakings given to courts and tribunals must be honored, and any defiance will be met with severe consequences under the .
