Bombay High Court
VITHAL KRISHNANATH DONGRE AND 45 ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed as the order under contempt has been complied with.
Summary
A contempt petition filed in 2010, which only came on board in 2011, sought enforcement of a court order directing the decision of an application for rental compensation. The court noted that other contempt petitions arising from the same order had been disposed after the order was complied with by deciding the representation and paying the rental compensation. A report dated 16‑09‑2026 indicated that the same compliance applied to the present petition. Assuming compliance, the court found no remaining issue in the petition. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt petition remains pending after the order directing rental compensation has been complied with
- Whether the court should dismiss the petition on the basis of presumed compliance
Subjects
- contempt
- rental compensation
- order compliance
- petition disposal
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43496
907 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 250 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 250 OF 2010
IN WP/1714/2007
Vithal Krishnanath Dongre And 45 Others
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
__________________________________________________________
• Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, A.G.P. for State
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]
1) This contempt petition is filed in the year 2010.
Lastly, it came on board in the year 2011. Thereafter, the
contempt petition has not been circulated.
2) In the order under contempt, the direction was
to decide the application for rental compensation.
3) The report of the Resource Personnel of this
Court dated 16.09.2026 shows that there were other
contempt petitions arising out of the same order, which are
disposed of by this Court as the order is complied with by
deciding the representation and paying the rental
compensation.
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2
907 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 250 OF 2010
4) It is presumed that along with the other
contempt petitions, the order under contempt in this
petition also must have been complied with.
5) In view of the same, nothing survives in the
contempt petition and the same stands disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2
Checking your session…