Bombay High Court

SHOBHABAI KALUBA GEETEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed as the petitioner is presumed to have received the compensation and the petition has remained uncirculated since 2013.

Summary

The petitioner, Shobhabai Kaluba Geete, filed a contempt petition alleging that she had not received rental compensation awarded by the State of Maharashtra. The petition was filed in 2013 but had not been circulated for several years. The Court noted that the passage of time creates a presumption that the petitioner must have received the compensation. Even if that presumption were incorrect, the petition had remained dormant since 2013, indicating that the grievance was likely already resolved. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition, allowing the petitioner to seek any further relief through the appropriate legal remedy if dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.

Issues considered

The Court considered whether a contempt petition filed in 2013, which had not been circulated for years, should be entertained despite the passage of time.

Subjects

contempt of court
rental compensation
presumption of receipt
lapse of time
procedural default
remedy under law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42458

                                                                       328.2013CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 328 OF 2013
                                   IN WP/3473/2012

                               SHOBHABAI KALUBA GEETE
                                          VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni

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

                                     DATE      :    15.09.2026

                 ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.):


                 1.         None for the petitioner.
                 2.         With the passage of time, it is presumed that the
                 petitioner must have received the rental compensation.
                 3.         Even otherwise, the petition is not even circulated
                 from 2013. Thus, it appears that the grievance of the
                 petitioner must have been redressed.
                 4.         In view of the above, the contempt petition is
                 disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioner is
                 aggrieved by the     quantum of amount determined by
                 respondent, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the
                 grievance by availing the appropriate remedy under law.




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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…