Bombay High Court
GRAMODYOGIC SHIKSHAN MANDALversusSANJAY BHATIYA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
No contempt lies as the order was quashed by the Supreme Court, and the petition stands disposed.
Summary
The High Court considered a contempt petition filed by Gramodyogic Shikshan Mandal against Sanjay Bhatiya and another. The petition alleged disobedience of an order that had been quashed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 10443‑10444 of 2016 (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 11709‑11710 of 2014). The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order on 28‑Oct‑2016, and the respondent refunded the balance amount to the petitioner on 31‑Jan‑2017. Since the order whose alleged breach formed the basis of the contempt petition no longer existed, the Court found no ground for contempt. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as there was nothing left to adjudicate.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged disobedience of an order that has been set aside by the Supreme Court can give rise to contempt proceedings
Subjects
- contempt of court
- supreme court judgment
- order quashed
- refund
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41105
904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2013
IN WP/10700/2010
Gramodyogic Shikshan Mandal
Versus
Sanjay Bhatiya And Another
__________________________________________________________
Adv. Mayur Subhedar h/f. Adv. Ajay S. Deshpande for the
Petitioner
Mr. N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for State
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]
1) The order of which disobedience is alleged in
this petition, is quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10443-10444 of 2016
arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11709-11710 of 2014, by order
dated 28.10.2016. Subsequently, since the said order was
set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the remaining amount
after deducting the amount of earnest money was refunded
to the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 on 31.01.2017.
2) In view of the above, nothing survives in the
present Contempt Petition and the same stands
disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 1
Checking your session…