: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.13 OF 2006 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.13 OF 2006 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.13 OF 2006 Shri H.K.Sharma Shri H.K.Sharma Shri H.K.Sharma (Resident of Vishwa Mahal (Resident of Vishwa Mahal (Resident of Vishwa Mahal Flat No.25, IVth Floor, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, C-Road, Churchgate, Bombay-400 020 ...Petitioner. C-Road, Churchgate, Bombay-400 020 ...Petitioner. C-Road, Churchgate, Bombay-400 020 ...Petitioner. V/s. V/s. V/s. 1. Shri Sanwarmal Kejriwal 1. Shri Sanwarmal Kejriwal 1. Shri Sanwarmal Kejriwal C/o Vishwa Mahal C/o Vishwa Mahal C/o Vishwa Mahal Flat No.25, IVth Floor, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, ’C’ Road, Churchgate, ’C’ Road, Churchgate, ’C’ Road, Churchgate, Bombay 400 020 Bombay 400 020 Bombay 400 020 2. Vishwa Co-op. H.S.Ltd., 2. Vishwa Co-op. H.S.Ltd., 2. Vishwa Co-op. H.S.Ltd., having its registered office at having its registered office at having its registered office at Vishwa Mahal, C Road, Churchgate, Vishwa Mahal, C Road, Churchgate, Vishwa Mahal, C Road, Churchgate, Bombay 400 020 Bombay 400 020 Bombay 400 020. 3. Shri L.H.Patil 3. Shri L.H.Patil 3. Shri L.H.Patil President, President, President, The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Court, Court, Bombay. Bombay. Bombay. 4. The State of Maharashtra 4. The State of Maharashtra 4. The State of Maharashtra 5. Shri Sanjay S.Kejrwal 5. Shri Sanjay S.Kejrwal 5. Shri Sanjay S.Kejrwal C/o. Vishwa Mahal, C/o. Vishwa Mahal, C/o. Vishwa Mahal, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, Flat No.25, IVth Floor, ’C’ Road, Churchgate, ’C’ Road, Churchgate, ’C’ Road, Churchgate, Bombay 400 020. ..Respondents. Bombay 400 020. ..Respondents. Bombay 400 020. ..Respondents. Shri H.K.Sharma Petitioner in person (absent) . Shri H.K.Sharma Petitioner in person (absent) . Shri H.K.Sharma Petitioner in person (absent) . Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. RESERVED ON :7th December, 2006. RESERVED ON :7th December, 2006. RESERVED ON :7th December, 2006. PRONOUNCED ON: PRONOUNCED ON: PRONOUNCED ON: 14th December, 2006 14th December, 2006 14th December, 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) (Per J.H.Bhatia, J.) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for : 2 : taking action for contempt of taking action for contempt of taking action for contempt of the Court against Respon Respon Respondent No.1 on the allegation that during the pendency of Dispute No.CCI/114/715/83 of 1986 before the pendency of Dispute No.CCI/114/715/83 of 1986 before the pendency of Dispute No.CCI/114/715/83 of 1986 before the Co-operative Court No.1, Bombay, Respondent No.1 had Co-operative Court No.1, Bombay, Respondent No.1 had Co-operative Court No.1, Bombay, Respondent No.1 had removed documents at Serial Numbers 43 and 44 alongwith removed documents at Serial Numbers 43 and 44 alongwith removed documents at Serial Numbers 43 and 44 alongwith the list of documents filed by Respondent No.1 himself. the list of documents filed by Respondent No.1 himself. the list of documents filed by Respondent No.1 himself. It appears that the dispute was filed by the It appears that the dispute was filed by the It appears that the dispute was filed by the Society-Respondent No.2. The Petitioner is a member of Society-Respondent No.2. The Petitioner is a member of Society-Respondent No.2. The Petitioner is a member of Respondent No.2-Society and is the owner of the flat Respondent No.2-Society and is the owner of the flat Respondent No.2-Society and is the owner of the flat and and and Respondent No.1 was a tenant. The dispute was Respondent No.1 was a tenant. The dispute was Respondent No.1 was a tenant. The dispute was before before before the Co-operative Court in which the Petitioner the Co-operative Court in which the Petitioner the Co-operative Court in which the Petitioner and and and Respondent No.1 were Opponent Nos.1 and 2 Respondent No.1 were Opponent Nos.1 and 2 Respondent No.1 were Opponent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. respectively. respectively. Record reveals that when the dispute was Record reveals that when the dispute was Record reveals that when the dispute was pending before pending before pending before the Co-operative Court, on 20th January, the Co-operative Court, on 20th January, the Co-operative Court, on 20th January, 1988 the 1988 the 1988 the present petitioner had made an application present petitioner had made an application present petitioner had made an application before the before the before the Co-operative Court contending that the Co-operative Court contending that the Co-operative Court contending that the documents documents documents mentioned at Serial Numbers 43 and 44 in the mentioned at Serial Numbers 43 and 44 in the mentioned at Serial Numbers 43 and 44 in the list of list of list of documents filed by Respondent No.1 were not in documents filed by Respondent No.1 were not in documents filed by Respondent No.1 were not in the bunch the bunch the bunch of documents and, therefore, he sought of documents and, therefore, he sought of documents and, therefore, he sought directions to directions to directions to Respondent No.1 to produce the said Respondent No.1 to produce the said Respondent No.1 to produce the said documents. The said documents. The said documents. The said documents were a letter written by documents were a letter written by documents were a letter written by the Petitioner to the Petitioner to the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 and its reply. That Respondent No.1 and its reply. That Respondent No.1 and its reply. That dispute was decided dispute was decided dispute was decided in favour of the Petitioner even in favour of the Petitioner even in favour of the Petitioner even though those documents though those documents though those documents were not produced. Respondent were not produced. Respondent were not produced. Respondent no.1 preferred an Appeal no.1 preferred an Appeal no.1 preferred an Appeal No.206 of 1988 before the No.206 of 1988 before the No.206 of 1988 before the Maharashtra Co-operative Maharashtra Co-operative Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court and that appeal Appellate Court and that appeal Appellate Court and that appeal also came to be also came to be also came to be : 3 : dismissed. On 14-10-1988, the dismissed. On 14-10-1988, the dismissed. On 14-10-1988, the petitioner made an petitioner made an petitioner made an application to the President, application to the President, application to the President, Co-operative Appellate Co-operative Appellate Co-operative Appellate Court alleging that during search Court alleging that during search Court alleging that during search on 12-10-1988, he on 12-10-1988, he on 12-10-1988, he found that the said two documents were found that the said two documents were found that the said two documents were removed by removed by removed by Respondent No.1 from the record of the Court Respondent No.1 from the record of the Court Respondent No.1 from the record of the Court sometimes sometimes sometimes between 11th to 20th January, 1988 and thus, between 11th to 20th January, 1988 and thus, between 11th to 20th January, 1988 and thus, he had he had he had committed contempt of the Court. On 15-11-1988 committed contempt of the Court. On 15-11-1988 committed contempt of the Court. On 15-11-1988 on the on the on the same allegations, he filed an application before same allegations, he filed an application before same allegations, he filed an application before the the the President, Co-operative Appellate Court to take President, Co-operative Appellate Court to take President, Co-operative Appellate Court to take action action action against the Respondent No.1 for contempt of the against the Respondent No.1 for contempt of the against the Respondent No.1 for contempt of the Court. Court. Court. However, the learned President rejected that However, the learned President rejected that However, the learned President rejected that application application application by an order dated 27th January, 1989 on the by an order dated 27th January, 1989 on the by an order dated 27th January, 1989 on the ground that ground that ground that removal of those documents from the record removal of those documents from the record removal of those documents from the record was a was a was a disputed question and further those documents were disputed question and further those documents were disputed question and further those documents were not not not very relevant for the decision of the matter because very relevant for the decision of the matter because very relevant for the decision of the matter because in in in spite of absence of those documents from the record spite of absence of those documents from the record spite of absence of those documents from the record in in in the dispute as well as in appeal, the present the dispute as well as in appeal, the present the dispute as well as in appeal, the present petitioner petitioner petitioner had been successful. Being not satisfied had been successful. Being not satisfied had been successful. Being not satisfied with the with the with the rejection of the said application, the present rejection of the said application, the present rejection of the said application, the present petitioner filed this Contempt Petition on 11-10-1989. petitioner filed this Contempt Petition on 11-10-1989. petitioner filed this Contempt Petition on 11-10-1989. 2. After careful perusal of the record, we are 2. After careful perusal of the record, we are 2. After careful perusal of the record, we are satisfied that firstly, removal of the said two satisfied that firstly, removal of the said two satisfied that firstly, removal of the said two documents from the record of the Court itself is a documents from the record of the Court itself is a documents from the record of the Court itself is a disputed question and the Courts below have not given disputed question and the Courts below have not given disputed question and the Courts below have not given any finding that Respondent No.1 had infact removed any finding that Respondent No.1 had infact removed any finding that Respondent No.1 had infact removed : 4 : those documents. Secondly, this contempt was allegedly those documents. Secondly, this contempt was allegedly those documents. Secondly, this contempt was allegedly committed when the matter was pending before the committed when the matter was pending before the committed when the matter was pending before the Co-operative Court. The President of the Co-operative Co-operative Court. The President of the Co-operative Co-operative Court. The President of the Co-operative Appellate Court, who is a superior to the Co-operative Appellate Court, who is a superior to the Co-operative Appellate Court, who is a superior to the Co-operative Court, has refused to make a reference for contempt of Court, has refused to make a reference for contempt of Court, has refused to make a reference for contempt of the Court against Respondent No.1 by rejecting the the Court against Respondent No.1 by rejecting the the Court against Respondent No.1 by rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner. Therefore, application filed by the present petitioner. Therefore, application filed by the present petitioner. Therefore, in view of provisions of Section 15(2) of the Contempt in view of provisions of Section 15(2) of the Contempt in view of provisions of Section 15(2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act also, this petition is not tenable. of the Courts Act also, this petition is not tenable. of the Courts Act also, this petition is not tenable. Thirdly, as per the provisions of Section 20, no Court Thirdly, as per the provisions of Section 20, no Court Thirdly, as per the provisions of Section 20, no Court shall initiate any proceedings for the contempt either shall initiate any proceedings for the contempt either shall initiate any proceedings for the contempt either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of period of one year from the date on which contempt is period of one year from the date on which contempt is period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed. As pointed out above, alleged to have been committed. As pointed out above, alleged to have been committed. As pointed out above, according to the petitioner, the said documents were according to the petitioner, the said documents were according to the petitioner, the said documents were removed from the record between 11th to 20th January, removed from the record between 11th to 20th January, removed from the record between 11th to 20th January, 1988 and on 20th January, 1988, he had found that those 1988 and on 20th January, 1988, he had found that those 1988 and on 20th January, 1988, he had found that those documents were not on record and he had sought direction documents were not on record and he had sought direction documents were not on record and he had sought direction to produce the documents. The present petition was to produce the documents. The present petition was to produce the documents. The present petition was filed on 11-10-1989, i.e., long after expiry of period filed on 11-10-1989, i.e., long after expiry of period filed on 11-10-1989, i.e., long after expiry of period of one year after the alleged removal of record. of one year after the alleged removal of record. of one year after the alleged removal of record. 3. In view of the above circumstances, we find 3. In view of the above circumstances, we find 3. In view of the above circumstances, we find that it is not a fit case where this Court should take that it is not a fit case where this Court should take that it is not a fit case where this Court should take an action for contempt of Court against Respondent No.1. an action for contempt of Court against Respondent No.1. an action for contempt of Court against Respondent No.1. : 5 : 4. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed and 4. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed and 4. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed and Rule is hereby discharged. Rule is hereby discharged. Rule is hereby discharged. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)