Bombay High Court

NANDKUMAR PANDURANGRAO MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is infructuous and therefore dismissed.

Summary

Petitioner Nandkumar Pandurangrao More filed Contempt Petition No. 34 of 2013 (WP/3561/2012) against the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner, through Advocate S. M. Gunjkar, sought relief but later informed the court that the petition had become infructuous. The learned judges considered the submission that there was no longer any cause of action to be pursued. Accordingly, the court accepted that the petition was infructuous and ordered its disposal. The contempt petition was therefore stood disposed without any further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition remains maintainable when it has become infructuous?

Subjects

Contempt
Infructuous petition
Dismissal
High Court
Procedural law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39013

                                                                  902 CONT. PETITION NO. 34 OF 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 902 CONT. PETITION NO. 34 OF 2013
                                         IN WP/3561/2012

                                       Nandkumar Pandurangrao More
                                                    Versus
                                     The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                     __________________________________________________________
                     Adv. S. M. Gunjkar h/f. Adv. Kalani Pravin N. for the
                     Petitioner
                     Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for State
                     __________________________________________________________


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

                                        DATE       : AUGUST 28, 2026

                     PER COURT :

                     1)              Learned Advocate S. M. Gunjkar holding for

                     Mr.    Kalani,     learned   counsel   for    the      petitioner,        on

                     instructions,      submits    that   the   petition      has      become

                     infructuous.

                     2)              Contempt Petition, therefore, 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…