COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY Vs. ISSAC PENHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bhagwati dated October 29, 1946, whereby he ordered that the respondent, i.e. the appellant in this Court, do pay into Court a fine of rupees one hundred for the contempt of this; Hon ble Court committed by him in not obeying an interim order made on September 28, 1946, in having, in contravention of the said order, ordered and directed the Government representative Ramkrishna Dinanath Shirsat to make an inventory of the furniture and other articles in flat No. 13 of the second floor of the building called "Rupayatan" situated at 69 Marine Drive, Bombay, and to lock up the flat by putting a lock upon the outer door of the said flat and "driving out the people who might be in possession thereof." It is further ordered that the respondent should pay to the petitioner his costs of the rule nisi and of the order as between attorney and client.

(2.) That order was made upon a rule nisi issued by the learned Judge on September 30 whereby he ordered that the respondent (i.e. the appellant in this Court): do appear before the Hon ble Judge nominated to hear miscellaneous matters on Monday the seventh day of October 1946 at 10-30 O clock in the forenoon and show cause if any he has why the respondent should not be committed to jail or otherwise dealt with by this Hon ble Court in such manner as may be deemed necessary for contempt of Court committed by the respondent, viz., ordering and directing the Government representative mentioned in the affidavit of V.V. Nadkarni to make an inventory of the furniture and other articles in the said flat and to lock up the flat by putting a lock on the outer door of the said flat and thereby failing; to comply with and contravening the said interim order dated the 28 day of September 1946 and why the respondent should not be ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner of the said application and of this rule nisi.

(3.) It is to be noted that there is nothing in the rule nisi about the respondent having ordered anybody to drive out the people who might be in possession of the flat; but on the view which we take of this matter, it becomes unnecessary to consider what the effect of this inconsistency between the rule nisi and the ultimate order might be.