Bombay High Court

CAPTION RAOSAHEB DAYARAM SURYAWANSHIversusMS SAYANTANI JAFA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the respondent had complied with the contempt order, leaving nothing for the petition to pursue.

Summary

The petitioner, Raosaheb Dayaram Suryawanshi, filed a contempt petition against Ms. Sayantani Jafa seeking enforcement of a prior order. The respondent State, represented by Mr. S.J. Salgare, filed an affidavit stating that the contempt order had been complied with and that pensionary benefits had been granted to the petitioner. The Court examined the affidavit and found that the respondent had indeed complied with the contempt order. Consequently, the Court held that there was no longer any relief to be granted in the petition. The petition was therefore disposed of with no further directions.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent has complied with the order passed in contempt.
Whether the contempt petition remains maintainable after compliance.

Subjects

contempt of court
pensionary benefits
compliance
petition disposal
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38540

                                                                                297.17CP

                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 297 OF 2017
                             IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9437 OF 2015

                          CAPTION RAOSAHEB DAYARAM SURYAWANSHI
                                           VERSUS
                                      MS SAYANTANI JAFA
                                              ...
                            AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.J.Salgare
                                              …
                                      CORAM : VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.

                                      DATE      :    25.08.2026


                 P.C. :


                 1]          The learned Advocate for the petitioner is elevated

                 as High Court Judge.

                 2]          The   affidavit-in-reply   is   filed   by   the     sole

                 respondent, which indicates that the order under contempt is

                 complied with and the pensionary benefits are granted to the

                 petitioner. Hence, the order under contempt is complied with.

                 3]          In view of the same, nothing survives in the

                 present Petition and the same stands disposed of.



                                                [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]
                                                       JUDGE

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…