Bombay High Court
GHANSHYAM S/O. SANTOBA UBALEversusVYANKATI BALIRAM NILAWAD
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The contempt petition is disposed as the respondent claims compliance and the matter has not been circulated since 2011.
Summary
The petitioner, Ghanshyam Ubale, filed a contempt petition in 2010 seeking payment of remaining retiral benefits with interest, as directed by an earlier contempt order. The order required payment within eight weeks at 8% simple interest from the due date. The petition was not circulated after November 19, 2010, and the respondent, the Municipal Council, asserted that the amount had already been paid. The court noted the respondent's statement and the lack of further proceedings since 2011. Consequently, the court held that the contempt petition stood disposed, effectively closing the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent complied with the contempt order directing payment of retiral benefits with interest
- Whether the contempt petition should continue despite lack of circulation after 2010
Subjects
- contempt
- contempt petition
- retiral benefits
- interest
- High Court
- disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43495
906 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2010
IN WP/4132/2009
Ghanshyam S/o. Santoba Ubale
Versus
Vyankati Baliram Nilawad And Another
__________________________________________________________
• Adv. S. R. Bagal for the Petitioner
• Adv. Shahaji C. Nadare h/f. Adv. R. V. Naiknaware for
Respondent No. 2
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]
1) In the order under contempt, remaining retiral
benefits were directed to be paid to the petitioner within
eight weeks with simple interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date on which the amount became due
and payable to the petitioner.
2) Notices were issued in the contempt petition in
the year 2010. Thereafter, the matter was not circulated
after 19.11.2010.
3) Learned advocate for the respondent - Municipal
Council makes a statement that the amount as directed
under the order under contempt is paid to the petitioner.
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2
906 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 198 OF 2010
4) In view of the statement made by the
respondent and otherwise also, as the contempt petition is
not circulated after 2011, the contempt petition stands
disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2
Checking your session…