Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ANILKUMAR RAMNARAYAN AGRAWAL AND ORversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was disposed of as there was nothing left to contend following compliance with the order.

Summary

The petitioners filed a contempt petition (No. 224 of 2008) alleging non‑compliance with a prior contempt order. The State of Maharashtra, as respondent, filed a civil application (No. 2588 of 2010) in the same matter. The petitioners, through Advocate A. S. Bajaj, asserted that the contempt order had been complied with. The Court, after hearing the submissions, found that the compliance was indeed effected. Consequently, there was no remaining issue in the contempt petition, and the Court ordered the petition to be disposed of along with any pending civil application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the contempt petition remains viable after the alleged compliance with the contempt order

Subjects

  • contempt of court
  • compliance
  • petition disposed
  • civil application
  • high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43379


                                            1                  904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 224 OF 2008



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                       904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 224 OF 2008
                                      IN WP/3950/2000
                   ANILKUMAR RAMNARAYAN AGRAWAL AND OTHERS
                                           VERSUS
                            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                               ...
            Adv. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioners
            Adv. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondents-State
                                               ...
                                             WITH
                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2588 OF 2010
                                       IN CP/224/2008
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                           VERSUS
                     ANILKUMAR RAMNARAYAN AGRAWAL AND ORS
                                              …
            Adv. N. B. Patil, AGP for applicant-State
            Adv. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondents
                                               ...
                                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                       DATED : 22/09/2026
            Order ( Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J. )

            .          The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the

            order under contempt is complied with.


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

            and the same stands disposed of along with pending civil

            application, if any.



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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.