Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Dr. A. De, learned Counsel for the non-applicant no.1 supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the proceedings under Section 13 of the said Act were filed within limitation and process was rightly issued by the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that two remedies were available for enforcing the order of the School Tribunal. The civil remedy was by way of execution while the present proceedings under Section 13 of the said Act were for disobedience of the order. After the review application was disposed of, the present complaint came to be filed on 15-6-2010. In view of Section 472 of the Code, the breach was continuing in nature and hence, it could not be said that the proceedings were barred by limitation. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and another vs. S. A. Ghode, Principal, Navprabhat Vidya Mandir and others 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 261, Saroj Pundlikrao Datir vs. Prakash Nandurkar and others 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 235, Shriprakash Chandmal Bora and anr. vs. Mutyal Vilas Rambau 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 927 and Shaikh Badarunnisa Begum Shaikh Abbas vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 407. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order did not call for any interference and the present proceedings deserve to be dismissed.