Bombay High Court

DATTATRAYA PANDHARINATH CHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was dismissed because the respondents had indicated compliance and no further breach of the original order existed.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition arising from an order dated 16‑02‑2012 that directed Respondent No.2 to decide a proposal filed by the petitioner. Respondents No.2 and No.3 submitted an affidavit stating that, should the petitioner file the proposal with the requisite documents, it would be considered, and that this affidavit was filed in 2013. The court noted that by the time of the affidavit the proposal should have already been considered by the respondents. Finding that the respondents had indicated compliance and that no further breach of the original order existed, the court held that nothing remained to be pursued in the contempt petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition remains maintainable after the respondents' affidavit indicating willingness to consider the petitioner's proposal

Subjects

contempt
petition disposal
compliance
order enforcement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39021

1 906 CONT. PETITION NO. 158 OF 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 CONT. PETITION NO. 158 OF 2013
IN WP/8457/2011
DATTATRAYA PANDHARINATH CHOLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…..
Adv. Vanita H. Sangole, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv. S. J. Salgare, AGP for Respondents-State
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 27/08/2026
Per Court:

. By way of an order under contempt dated 16.02.2012 passed

in the writ petition, respondent No.2 was directed to decide the

proposal filed by the petitioner. By way of an affidavit, respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 in this contempt petition have stated that, if the

proposal is filed by the petitioner along with the required

documents, it will be considered. This affidavit is filed in the year

2013. By this time, the application must have been considered by

respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as stated in their affidavit in reply.

2. In view of the same, nothing survives in this contempt

petition and the petition stands disposed of.

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

shivani/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…