Respondents admitted 52 patients in secured hospital property despite explicit Court directions to vacate, Court emphasizes rule of law and orders immediate shifting of patients.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 9, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat) found the respondents, Shrirang Sadashiv Gokhale and another, guilty of aggravated contempt of court for willfully disobeying its orders. The contempt petition was filed by LIC Housing Finance Limited, the petitioner, against the respondents who had undertaken before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to vacate a hospital property, which was a secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).
The Court noted that despite a specific order dated July 7, 2026, which extended time for the respondents to shift patients out of the hospital and vacate the property, the respondents flagrantly violated the direction by admitting as many as 52 patients into the hospital. The Court issued a notice on August 18, 2026, and further directed the respondents not to admit any more patients. However, the respondents continued to admit patients, justifying their actions by stating that some patients required immediate medical attention and could not be refused treatment.
Rejecting this explanation, the Court held that the hospital run by the respondents was not the only medical facility in Pune and such conduct amounted to aggravated contempt of court. The Court underscored the paramount importance of respect for the rule of law and the majesty of the Court, warning that disregard for court orders threatens the very foundation of the justice system.
In its order, the Court mandated that the respondents must ensure that all patients admitted in defiance of the Court's orders be properly shifted to other facilities by September 16, 2026. The Court made it clear that it would not tolerate any further violation of its directions and listed the matter for further hearing on September 17, 2026.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's firm stance against contempt and stresses the necessity for compliance with court orders, especially in matters involving secured assets and public interest.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of court - Aggravated contempt established where respondents willfully disobeyed court orders by admitting patients into a hospital that was a secured asset despite explicit directions not to do so.
Statutory provision(s):
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 10, 12; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
LIC Housing Finance Limited v. Shrirang Sadashiv Gokhale, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981407
