PETITIONER: BHATTAD LEASING & FINANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: MR. NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT30/10/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 210 JT 1995 (8) 192 1995 SCALE (6)383 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Having heard all the counsel for both the parties in
extenso and perusing relevant material on record, ultimately
we conclude that this is not a case fit for convicting
respondent No.5, 6 and 7 for violation of the status quo
order made by the High Court on May 30, 1994. No case of
contempt arises against respondents Nos.1 to 4. Though 6th
respondent was served with the notice directing him to be
present, he was not present. Had we been informed at the
beginning, we would have taken appropriate steps for his
presence by non-bailable warrants. But at the end of the
arguments, we were informed of it. We strongly condemn his
conduct as unbecoming of a responsible citizen.
However, these facts which emerged at the hearing are
relevant facts to be considered for the purpose of disposal
of the writ petition on merits. Since the writ petition is
pending, we decline to express any opinion on the facts and
circumstances and on merits. The contempt petition is
accordingly dismissed.
However, the High Court is requested to dispose of the
writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within
six months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Receiver’s report disclosed that possession of
39000 sq. mts. of land was given by respondent Nos.5 and 6
to the East West Development Company. In that behalf since
the controversy was not focussed in the High Court and the
matter has come to light only through the report submitted
by the Court Receiver after the contempt proceedings were
initiated, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate
action according to law. The appeal is dismissed
accordingly.