Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI LAXMAN DIGULEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition was disposed of as the order had been complied with.

Summary

Shivaji Laxman Digule filed a contempt petition alleging that the State of Maharashtra had not paid rental compensation as ordered by the Court. Respondent No.4 submitted a letter dated 12 March 2014 confirming that the rental compensation had been paid to the petitioner. The Court recorded the letter as evidence and marked it for identification. Finding that the order was fully complied with, the Court held that no ground remained for the contempt proceeding. Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of, illustrating that compliance with a court order extinguishes the basis of a contempt action.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should continue despite the alleged compliance with the order for rental compensation?

Subjects

contempt
compliance
rental compensation
petition disposed
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                         907 CP-333.2013.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         907 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2013
                   IN WP/3433/2012

                 SHIVAJI LAXMAN DIGULE
                         VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         None for the petitioner.
          Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       DATED    : 16th September, 2026

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

1.    Learned A.G.P. placed on record letter dated 12.03.2014

issued by respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that rental

compensation is paid to the petitioner.                The letter dated

12.03.2014        is   taken   on    record     and    marked       ‘X’   for

identification.

2.    In view of compliance of the order, nothing survives in

the contempt petition and the same is disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                    (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                       JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…