Bombay High Court

Kishor So Devidas GadadeversusThe State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court allowed the application and ordered the amendment to be carried out, with a notice to be issued to respondent No.5 in the contempt petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Kishor So Devidas Gadade, filed a civil application (No. 9983 of 2026) along with a contempt petition (No. 326 of 2025) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking an amendment and related relief. The respondent, the State of Maharashtra, was represented by the Additional Government Pleader. The Court examined the application and, finding merit in the prayer clause B, allowed the application and ordered that the amendment be effected. Following the amendment, the Court directed that a notice be issued to respondent No.5 in the contempt petition, with a return date of 28 September 2026. The Court also permitted the private service of process in regular mode. The judgment was delivered by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on 7 September 2026.

Issues considered

What relief was sought in the civil application and contempt petition?
Whether the amendment sought by the petitioner should be allowed.
Whether a notice should be issued to respondent No.5 in the contempt petition.

Subjects

civil application
contempt petition
amendment
notice
high court

Judgment

                                  (1)
                                                    31 CA-9983.2026.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            31 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9983 OF 2026
                        IN CP/326/2025
                             WITH
             CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 326 OF 2025
                       IN WP/7626/2018

            KISHOR SO DEVIDAS GADADE
                     VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
                                  …
            Mr. Vishwajeet Jain, Advocate for the applicant.
              Mr. R.D. Raut, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
                             ...
                   CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                           VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                   DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

Per Court :

1.    Heard.

2.    For the reasons stated in the application, the application

stands allowed in terms of prayer clause [B] and disposed of

accordingly.     The amendment is to be carried out in due

course.

3.    After the amendment is carried out, issue notice to the

concerned respondent No.5 in contempt petition, returnable on

28.09.2026. In regular mode, private service is also allowed.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                 (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                    JUDGE
VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…