Bombay High Court

RIZAWANA BEGUM SHARIF PATHAN AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the alleged suppression of facts does not constitute contempt of court.

Summary

The petitioners, Rizawana Begum Sharif Pathan and others, filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents had suppressed facts concerning the disbursement of a certain amount. The petitioners contended that this alleged suppression amounted to contempt of court. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no contempt existed because the grievance pertained merely to factual suppression, not to any wilful disobedience of a court order. The bench examined whether the alleged suppression fell within the ambit of contempt under the law. Concluding that the petitioners' claim did not constitute contempt, the court disposed of the contempt petition. The petition was therefore dismissed without any finding of contempt.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged suppression of facts regarding the disbursement of an amount amounts to contempt of court.

Subjects

contempt
suppression of facts
civil procedure
court order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37469-DB

                                                                          313.20CP

                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 313 OF 2020
                                     IN WP/5181/2018

                          RIZAWANA BEGUM SHARIF PATHAN & OTHERS
                                               VERSUS
                                    UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
                                                   ...
                          Advocate for the petitioners : Mr.A.K.Shingare h/f.
                                         Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi
                            AGP for Respondent-State : Mrs.U.S.Bhosale
                                                   ...
                                         CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                       VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                       DATE      :   18.08.2026
                 P.C. :


                 1]           Mr.A.K.Shingare,   learned   counsel   holding   for

                 Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, on

                 instructions, submits that there is no contempt in the

                 present matter as the petitioners are only claiming that there

                 was suppression of facts about disbursement of the amount.

                 2]           In view of the same, the Contempt Petition stands

                 disposed of.



                 [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]              [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
                         JUDGE                             JUDGE

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…