Bombay High Court

MANIK AMBADAS POKHARKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of on the basis that the petitioner is presumed to have received compensation and the grievance appears to have been redressed.

Summary

The petitioner, Manik Ambadas Pokharkar, filed a contempt petition (No. 335 of 2013) alleging that he had not received rental compensation due to him. The Court noted that, given the lapse of time, it is presumed that the petitioner must have received the compensation. Additionally, the petition had not been circulated since 2013, indicating that the grievance was likely already redressed. The Court therefore concluded that there was no ground to continue the contempt proceeding. It disposed of the petition, but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum if he remains dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the respondent. The order was pronounced by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav on 16 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should be entertained despite the passage of time
Whether the petitioner has been deemed to have received rental compensation
Whether the grievance has been adequately redressed

Subjects

contempt petition
rental compensation
presumption of receipt
petition disposal
judicial redress

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                         909 CP-335.2013.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         909 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 335 OF 2013
                   IN WP/3437/2012

               MANIK AMBADAS POKHARKAR
                        VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         None for the petitioner.
          Mr. S.J. Salgare, 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.    None for the petitioner.

2.    With the passage of time, it is presumed that the
petitioner must have received rental compensation.

3.    Even otherwise also, the petition is not circulated after
2013.    Thus, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner
must have been redressed.

4.    In view of above, the contempt petition is disposed of
with liberty that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the
quantum of amount determined by the respondent, it will be
open for the petitioner to agitate the grievance by availing
appropriate remedy under law.


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

VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…