1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 88/2010 Leeladhar Pandurang Wankhede ..versus.. Sunaina D. Vibhaindik =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. Abhay Sambre, Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Anil P.. Thakare, counsel for respondent. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 6th JULY, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner feels that the order dated 4.12.2009 of the Joint Charity Commissioner, allowing Appeal No.80/2000 and rejecting Change Report No. 190/1993, whereby the name of petitioner was recorded in Schedule-I of the Trust, is flouted by the respondent herein. 3) It is a matter of record, Misc. Civil Application No. 18/2010 was moved before the Competent Authority and in terms of Rule 13(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, 1951, necessary changes are effected by the 2 concerned authority, which does not mandate issuance of any notice to other side. 4) It is pointed by the respondent/contemnor that petitioner instead of challenging order dated 14th January, 2010 passed in M.C.A. No. 18/2010, has filed Misc. Civil Application No. 41/2010 and prayed for recalling the order dated 14th January, 2010. It was rejected on 22.4.2010. This order was not challenged by the petitioner and has taken up the proceedings of contempt. 5) Taking survey of the facts, it is difficult to digest that there is any breach of the order by the authority. The other legal course available to the petitioner can be exhausted. Contempt petition dismissed. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit