Bombay High Court

VASANTRAO BHAGWANRAO SUWARNAKARversusLINGAMMA SHIVRAM MISTRI AIRETTI AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was disposed because the underlying writ petition had been disposed, leaving no operative order to enforce.

Summary

The petitioner, Vasantrao Bhagwanrao Suwarnakar, filed Contempt Petition No. 344 of 2010 alleging contempt of an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 525/2007. The respondents included Shivram Rajaram Mistri, L.rs. Lingamma Shivram Mistri and others, with the State represented by Advocate G.A. Kulkarn. The Court noted that the main writ petition had been fully disposed on 24 June 2008, rendering the interim order, and consequently the alleged contempt, moot. Since the underlying proceeding no longer existed, there was nothing for the contempt petition to enforce. The Court therefore disposed of the contempt petition. Any pending civil applications linked to the matter were also ordered to stand disposed.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt petition can survive and be entertained when the substantive writ petition to which the alleged contempt order relates has been disposed.

Subjects

contempt of court
interim order
writ petition disposal
jurisdiction
civil application

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43133

                                                                         344.2010CP

                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         6 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 344 OF 2010
                                     IN WP/525/2007
                             Vasantrao Bhagwanrao Suwarnakar
                                          VERSUS
                 Shivram Rajaram Mistri L.rs. Lingamma Shivram Mistri and
                                           others
                                             ...
                 Mr.G.A. Kulkarn, AGP for Respondent/State
                                             ...
                                           WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9590 OF 2011
                                      IN CP/344/2010
                                           WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10283 OF 2011
                                      IN CP/344/2010

                                       CORAM :       VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.
                                       DATE  :       21.09.2026

                 P.C. :
                 1.          None for the petitioner.
                 2.          The order of which contempt is alleged was an
                 interim order passed in Writ Petition.
                 3.          Subsequently, the main Writ Petition has itself
                 been disposed of by this Court on 24.06.2008.
                 4.          In view of disposal of the writ petition itself,
                 nothing survives in the contempt petition and the same
                 stands disposed of.
                 5.        Pending Civil Applications, if any stand disposed of.




                                                [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]
                                                         JUDGE
                 sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…