Bombay High Court
MANIK DEORAO BARGAJE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed as no matter remains after compliance with the contempt order and prior disposal of part of the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, Manik Deorao Bargaje and another, filed a contempt petition against the State of Maharashtra. The petitioners did not appear before the Court. The Attorney General for the State informed the Court that respondent No.4 had deposited Rs.5,48,134 in the account of petitioner No.2, thereby complying with the contempt order, and that petitioner No.2 had not been present for a considerable period. The Court noted that an earlier order dated 25 September 2019 had already disposed of the petition concerning petitioner No.1. In view of the compliance and the earlier disposal, the Court found that no issue remained in the petition. Consequently, the Court ordered the petition to stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt petition remains pending after the respondent's compliance and the petitioner's non‑appearance
Subjects
- contempt
- compliance
- petition disposal
- civil procedure
- non‑appearance
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:25976-DB
929.cp.146.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
929 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 146 OF 2019
IN WP/14771/2017
Manik Deorao Bargaje And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
__________________________________________________________
Adv. Dhakne Vijay A. for the Petitioners - Absent
Mr. S. J. Salgare, AGP for State
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. None for the petitioners.
2. Learned AGP, by inviting our attention to the
affidavit-in-reply, submits that respondent No.4 has
already deposited an amount of Rs.5,48,134/- in the
account of Petitioner No. 2 towards compliance with the
order under contempt. Petitioner No.2 has also not
remained present before this Court for a considerable
period. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that the
grievance of Petitioner No. 2 stands redressed.
Komal Kamble 1/2
929.cp.146.2019
3. It is further submitted that, by order dated
25.09.2019, this Court had already disposed of the present
petition in respect of petitioner No.1.
4. In view of the above, nothing survives in the
present petition. Accordingly, the same stands disposed
of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble 2/2
Checking your session…