1 CP 207/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 207 OF 2001 ,In CA NO.1902/1997 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.697/1996 APPASAHEB OMPRAKASH GHOGRE VERSUS SHALUBAI NARSAPPA VANJARE AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.V. D. Hon AGP for Respondents: Mr. V.H.Dighe. Advocate for Respondents no.3 & 4:Mr. S.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.5:Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 17, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. This matter was extensively argued on 13th Dec.,2011. On evaluation of entire record of sale deeds, and the orders of this Court, filing of contempt petition on 3rd May, 2001, it is clear that few of the sale transactions were beyond the period of one year, however, more than 16 transactions purportedly executed by Sudant Tukaram Dange, respondent no.3, are covering the period of one year from 3rd May, 2001. 2. Today, Mr.V.D.Hon, on instructions, informs that respondent No.4 Anand Ramrao Khadkikar has executed sale deed No.3580/2001. 3. Mr.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent, accepts the mistake committed by the 2 CP 207/2001 respondent in executing sale deeds of the property. However, he asserts that it was under pressing necessities and oblivious to the orders passed by this Court. Ultimately, an undertaking is furnished on behalf of Sudant, respondent no. 3, accepting illegal execution of 14 sale deeds which, Mr.Hon repeats, to be 16 (latter two being Registration Nos.668/2001 and 669/2001) - the affiant Sudant accepts to deposit sale consideration of 14 sale transactions total amounting to Rs.2,56,000/- ( Rs. two lacs, fifty six thousand) in this Court upto 20th Feb.,2012. This is by way of undertaking and affidavit. Mr.Kulkarni, still, asserts about the sale deed nos.668/2001 and 669/2001, as to its date. If it is after April, 2000, necessarily, the affiant will deposit sale proceeds of these two sale transactions by the same date i.e. 20th Feb., 2012. 4. So far as respondent No.4 Khadkikar is concerned, he has executed one sale deed. Consequently, he will also deposit sale proceeds upto 20th Feb.,2012. 5. Respondent No.5 Uttam has purchased the properties inspite of there being injunction but, it was in 1999. Consequently, the contempt proceedings against him is barred by virtue of Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act and hence, it is dismissed. 3 CP 207/2001 6. In the light of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, in the respective affidavits, the apology is accepted and, added to it, there is a undertaking. Though the breach of this Court's order is established, however, the respondents - contemnors are purged of contempt on agreeing to deposit the sale proceeds, referred above, within time schedule. Needless to indicate, transfer of immovable property made in violation of injunction issued by Court does not confer right, title or interest on the transferee as it would not be a transfer approved by law. 7. So far as respondent nos.6 and 7 are concerned, they have virtually no role, or personal interest in the matter; whatever act these respondents have done was as a part of their official duty - they did not act in utter disregard to the orders of this Court. Consequently, notices, if any, issued to the extent of respondent nos. 6 and 7 are discharged. Contempt petition disposed of with above indications. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/207-01cp