Bombay High Court

SUNITA PRABHUAPPA BAWAGEversusSHRI VISHWESHWAR SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ALMALA THROUGH PRESIDENT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as the parties have settled the dispute and are not interested in further litigation.

Summary

The petitioner, Sunita Bawage, filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 319 of 2013) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to take instructions, but the court’s resource personnel reported that the parties had reached a compromise and that no appearances had been made since 2015. An affidavit‑in‑reply was filed by the respondents confirming the compromise. Given that both parties were no longer interested in pursuing the matter, the court considered whether the contempt petition should continue. The judges held that, in view of the settlement, there was no basis to proceed and consequently disposed of the contempt petition.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt petition may be dismissed when the parties have reached a compromise and are not willing to continue the proceedings

Subjects

contempt
compromise
petition disposed
high court
procedural law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39025

909 CONT. PETITION NO. 319 OF 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 CONT. PETITION NO. 319 OF 2013
IN WP/7818/2010
Sunita D/o. Prabhuappa Bawage
Versus
Shri Vishweshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Almala,
Through President And Others
__________________________________________________________
Adv. A. P. Dongre h/f. Adv. Rajendra Godbole for the
Petitioner
Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for State
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026

PER COURT :

1) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks time to take instructions, it appears from the report
of the Resource Personnel of this Court dated 18.08.2026
that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
An affidavit-in-reply has also been filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2) The report further indicates that after the year
2015, the parties have not appeared before this Court.
3) Under such circumstances, it appears that
pursuant to the compromise, the parties are not interested
in proceeding with the matter.
4) Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands
disposed of.

(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page 1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…