Bombay High Court
GANGARAM NAGOBA CHILKEWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
No contempt remains as the petitioner has complied with the order, and the petition is disposed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 381 of 2013) alleging non-compliance with a prior order. Respondent No.2 produced a letter dated 05/09/2013 showing that the petitioner's representation had been decided, and the petitioner’s counsel confirmed that the order had been complied with. The court examined the letter and the confirmation of compliance. Finding that the petitioner had fulfilled the earlier order, the court held that no contempt remained. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- What, if any, contempt of court remains after the petitioner’s compliance with the earlier order?
Subjects
- contempt of court
- compliance
- petition disposed
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40120
907 cp 381-13 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 CONT. PETITION NO. 381 OF 2013
IN WP/618/2013
GANGARAM NAGOBA CHILKEWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. A. R. Tapse h/f Mr. Suryawanshi Prashant D., Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr. Pathan Hamzakhan I. , Advocate for Respondent No.2
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
Date : 01/09/2026
PER COURT :
1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the
representation of the petitioner has been decided by letter dated
05/09/2013. The said letter is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for
identification.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner confirms the compliance of the
order.
3. In view of the same, nothing survives in the present contempt
petition and the same stands disposed of.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
VS Maind/ Page|1
Checking your session…