Bombay High Court

YOGESH LAXMAN MAHAJANversusSHANTARAM TUKARAM PATIL AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was dismissed as the order alleged to be disobeyed had been complied with.

Summary

In 2012 a contempt petition was filed alleging that the order dated 31 January 2011 in Writ Petition No.295/2011 had not been complied with. The order was subsequently challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.52/2015, which was decided on 6 July 2015. The appellate decision held that the petitioner, who was respondent No.1, was satisfied with the amount deposited by the Management in the Court and that the amount had been withdrawn by the petitioner. The respondent’s counsel placed the appellate order on record, showing that the contested order had been fulfilled. The Court observed that, in view of the compliance, there was no ground for contempt. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the order dated 31.01.2011 in Writ Petition No.295/2011 was complied with, thereby negating the alleged contempt.
Whether the satisfaction of the amount deposited in Letters Patent Appeal No.52/2015 extinguishes any contempt liability.

Subjects

contempt
order compliance
letters patent appeal
high court
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43079

                                                                         21.2012CP

                                                1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2012
                                   IN WP/295/2011

                                    Yogesh Laxman Mahajan
                                             VERSUS
                                Shantaram Tukaram Patil And Ors
                                                 ...
                 Mr.Kalyan Patil h/f Mr.Barlinge S.R., Advocate for Petitioner
                 Mr.Rajdeep D. Raut, AGP for Respondent/State
                 Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.
                                                 ...

                                     CORAM :        VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.

                                     DATE      :    21.09.2026

                 P.C. :


                 1.         The contempt petition was filed in the year 2012
                 in respect of disobedience of the order passed in Writ Petition
                 No.295/2011 of the order dated 31.01.2011.
                 2.         The order of which the contempt is alleged was
                 subsequently challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal
                 No.52/2015 and the same was disposed of on 6 th July, 2015,
                 wherein the present petitioner, who was respondent no.1,
                 was satisfied with the amount, which was deposited by the
                 Management in the Court and further the said amount must
                 have been withdrawn by the petitioner.
                 3.         Learned Advocate for respondent no.1 has placed
                 on record the order in Letters Patent Appeal No.52/2015.
                                                    21.2012CP

                             2

4.         In view of the same, the order under contempt is
complied with. As such, the contempt petition stands
disposed of.


                            [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]
                                     JUDGE
sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…