Gujarat High Court High Court

Parbatbhai vs The on 22 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Parbatbhai vs The on 22 February, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Ms.Justice B.M.Trivedi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/3398/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONTEMPT No. 3398 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 545 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

PARBATBHAI
BHIMABHAI KHUNTI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

LILUBEN
GOGANBHAI KADCHA - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MITUL K SHELAT for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/02/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. The
basis of the present application is the alleged breach and
non-compliance of the order dated 16.7.2008 passed by this Court in
Civil Application No. 1577/2008, whereby, interim injunction was
granted in terms of para-5(B).

2. Mr.

Shelat learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the relief
para-5(B) was to the effect restraining the opponent therein from
taking minor children Pratik and Jaydeep out side India.

3. We
have heard Mr. Shelat learned counsel appearing for the
applicant-petitioner. It is undisputed position that as per the
applicant-petitioner, the opponent has left the limits of Indian
territory. No evidence is produced on record to show that minor
Pratik and Jaydeep were within the territory of India on the date
when this Court passed the order. No material is produced on record
to show that on which date the respondent – opponent has left
the country and, that too, in contravention of the order passed by
this Court. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for this
Court to take cognizance of the alleged contempt.

4. Apart
from the above,, it deserves to be recorded that when the opponent is
not within the territory of the country, admittedly, as stated by the
applicant, the jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the ground as sought
to be canvassed.

5. Hence,
the present application is not entertained and dismissed.

6. The
aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties of main First Appeal.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(Ms.

B.M. TRIVEDI, J.)

mandora/

   

Top