Bombay High Court

MR. PREM CHANDRA UPADHYAY THR HIS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MRS. MEGHANA J. VAITYversusMRS. URVASHI RAJESH SHAH

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that no case was made out for initiating contempt proceedings and dismissed the contempt petition.

Summary

The petitioners sought contempt proceedings against the contemnor for allegedly failing to comply with a direction to pay arrears arising from an order dated 3 March 2025 that vacated the suit premises. The court noted that while the premises had indeed been vacated as per the order, the petitioners had not demonstrated that the arrears direction had been breached. The court held that the petitioners were free to enforce the order and recover the arrears through appropriate legal means. Consequently, the court found no sufficient basis to initiate contempt proceedings. The contempt petition was therefore disposed of without any finding of contempt.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to comply with the direction for payment of arrears constitutes contempt of court.

Subjects

contempt of court
execution of court order
arrears
civil appellate jurisdiction
writ petition
non‑compliance

Judgment

                                                      15-CP-793-2025.DOC




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
               CONTEMPT PETITION NO.793 OF 2025
                                     IN
                 WRIT PETITION NO.12184 OF 2024


Mr. Prem Chandra Upadhyay Thr. His
Constituted Attorney Mrs. Meghana J. Vaity            …Petitioners
 Versus
Mrs. Urvashi Rajesh Shah                              …Contemnor


Mr. Mangesh Naik a/w Vishaka Tiwari, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent-State.


                      CORAM:          ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                      DATED :         28th August 2026
PC:-


1.      Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.


2.      In terms of the order dated 03rd March 2025, it is admitted

before me that the suit premises are vacated in terms of Para 5 of

the order. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits

that the directions for arrears has not been complied with.


3.      The Petitioners at liberty to execute the order and recover

the arrears, as available in law.




                                    Page 1
Akash
                                                    15-CP-793-2025.DOC




4.      Considering the above observations the Contempt Petition is

disposed of.


5.      No case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings.




                                           [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]




                                Page 2
Akash

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…