Bombay High Court
SUDINA RUBJI VALVIversusSAMBHAJIRAO M SARKUNDE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The order was complied with and, due to the petitioner’s inaction, the contempt petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non‑compliance with a court order. The respondent State, through its Advocate General, submitted that the order had been complied with, a claim supported by an affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. The court noted that the petitioner had not taken any steps to circulate the matter since September 2013 and had been inactive in pursuing the petition. Considering the respondent’s compliance and the petitioner’s inaction, the court found no ground to proceed with the contempt petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any order of contempt.
Issues considered
- Whether the order alleged to be disobeyed was actually complied with
- Whether the petitioner’s delay and inactivity justify dismissal of the contempt petition
Subjects
- contempt of court
- order compliance
- procedural delay
- petition dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40114
903 cp 341-13 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 CONT. PETITION NO. 341 OF 2013
IN WP/972/2013
SUDINA RUBJI VALVI
VERSUS
SAMBHAJIRAO M SARKUNDE AND ANOTHER
…
Mr. S. J. Salgare, AGP for Respondent-State
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
Date : 01/09/2026
PER COURT :
1. None for the petitioner.
2. Learned AGP submits that the order of which disobedience has
been alleged in this contempt petition is complied with. The compliance
is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 2.
3. In any event, the petitioner has not circulated the matter since
06/09/2013 and has not been diligent in pursuing the present
contempt petition.
4. In view of the above, the contempt petition stands disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
VS Maind/ Page|1
Checking your session…