Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

NANDKUMAR TUKARAM TIVGHALEversusKRUSHNANT NAGNATH DESHMUKH

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition was dismissed as the contempt order had been complied with, leaving no matter for adjudication.

Summary

The petitioner, Nandkumar Tukaram Tivghale, filed a contempt petition seeking an adjournment. The petitioner’s counsel, Adv. Gayatri S. Kalve, argued for the adjournment, while the Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. U.S. Bhosale, submitted that the contempt order had already been complied with, albeit belatedly, in 2015. The Court examined whether any relief remained after the compliance. Finding that the order had been satisfied, the Court held that there was nothing left to adjudicate. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of and the rule was discharged.

Issues considered

  • Whether the contempt petition remains viable after the order has been complied with, even if compliance was delayed.

Subjects

  • contempt
  • adjournment
  • compliance
  • petition disposal
  • civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39014

                                                              903 CONT. PETITION NO. 35 OF 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 903 CONT. PETITION NO. 35 OF 2013
                                         IN WP/7383/2011

                                   Nandkumar Tukaram Tivghale
                                               Versus
                                  Krushnant Nagnath Deshmukh
                     __________________________________________________________
                     Adv. Gayatri S. Kalve h/f. Adv. Mahesh V. Ghatge for the
                     Petitioner
                     Ms. U. S. Bhosale, AGP for State
                     __________________________________________________________

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

                                        DATE      : AUGUST 28, 2026

                     PER COURT :

                     1)              Although the learned Advocate Ms. Gayatri S.

                     Kalve, holding for learned counsel Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge for

                     the petitioner, seeks an adjournment, the learned Assistant

                     Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the

                     order under contempt has already been complied with,

                     albeit belatedly, in the year 2015.

                     2)              In view of the compliance, nothing survives in

                     the present petition. The Contempt Petition, therefore,

                     stands disposed of. Rule stands discharged.



                     (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)            (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                               JUDGE                            JUDGE
                      Komal Kamble                                               Page 1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.