Bombay High Court

NAGORAO SAKHARAM JAGTAP AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the respondents had complied with the contempt order by having decided the rental compensation application, and therefore the petition was disposed of.

Summary

In Contempt Petition No. 121 of 2011, petitioners Nagorao Sakharm Jagtap and others sought compliance with an earlier order directing the respondents to decide their application for rental compensation. The High Court, by order dated 11 September 2026, reiterated that the respondents must decide the application. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an affidavit-in-reply stating that the application had already been decided by an order dated 5 July 2011. The Court examined the affidavit and concluded that the respondents had indeed complied with the contempt order. Consequently, the Court held that the contempt order was satisfied and disposed of the petition. The disposition reflects that no further action is required from the respondents.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents complied with the contempt order directing them to decide the petitioners' application for rental compensation.

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
order compliance
High Court
petition disposed

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42528


                                            1                  901 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 121 OF 2011



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           901 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 121 OF 2011
                                     IN WP/6710/2009

                         NAGORAO SAKHARAM JAGTAP AND ORS
                                         VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                            ...
            Adv. Devidas B. Dangode h/f Adv. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for the
            Petitioner
            Adv. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents-State
                                            ...

                                       CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                               VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                       DATED : 11/09/2026
                ORDER ( Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J. ) :-

            .          In the order under contempt, the respondents were directed to

            decide the petitioners' application for rental compensation.

            2.         The affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3,

            wherein it is stated that by order dated 05.07.2011, the application

            of the petitioners was decided.

            3.         As such, the order under contempt is complied with and the
            petition stands disposed of.




            ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

            shivani/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…