Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

CHANDRABHAN SHAMRAO AGALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of for non-prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition in 2013 seeking rental compensation from Respondent No.2, who was later transferred and the notices remained unserved. No further action was taken by the petitioner, and the respondent claimed compliance with the contempt order by the time of the hearing. The court observed that the petitioner appeared uninterested in prosecuting the contempt. Consequently, the court held that the petition should be disposed of for non-prosecution. The petition was therefore dismissed without any further orders.

Issues considered

  • Whether a contempt petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution by the petitioner

Subjects

  • contempt
  • non-prosecution
  • rental compensation
  • procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39009


                                            1               912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 278 OF 2013



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 278 OF 2013
                                    IN WP/6102/2011
                            CHANDRABHAN SHAMRAO AGALE
                                        VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                …..
            None for the petitioner.
            Adv. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondents-State
                                                …..

                                      CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                              VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                      DATED : 27/08/2026
            Per Court:

            .        None for the petitioner.



            2.       Notices were issued in this petition in the year 2013, which
            remained unserved, as the respondent No.2 was transferred to
            Kannad. Thereafter, no steps have been taken in this contempt
            petition.


            3.       By way of order under contempt, the    rental compensation
            was to be determined by the respondent No. 2. The learned AGP
            states that the demand was raised on 18.06.2013 with the Deputy
            Commissioner, AGS, Aurangabad. The petitioner has not circulated
            the petition thereafter. By this time, the order under contempt
            must have been complied with and petitioner must have received
            rental compensation.
                              2                912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 278 OF 2013



4.         In view of the same, it seems that the petitioner is not
interested in prosecuting the contempt. Hence, the contempt
petition stands disposed of for non prosecution.




( 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.