Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

AMAN KHAN USMAN KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as the order under contempt has been complied with.

Summary

Aman Khan filed Contempt Petition No. 417 of 2013 arising out of WP/4582/2012, alleging that the order passed in the earlier proceeding had not been complied with. The petitioner was represented by Advocate S. S. Khoche on behalf of Mr. Palodkar Deodatt P. The State of Maharashtra was represented by Advocate N. B. Patil, A.G.P., and Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were represented by Advocate A. M. Karad, who was absent. The petitioner submitted that the order under contempt had been fully complied with. The Court, after considering the submission, found no remaining ground for the contempt petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as there was nothing left to adjudicate.

Issues considered

  • What is the status of the order under contempt and does any ground remain for the contempt petition?

Subjects

  • contempt
  • compliance
  • petition disposed
  • high court
  • civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41586

                                                              912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2013
                                      IN WP/4582/2012

                                          Aman Khan Usman Khan
                                                   Versus
                                    The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                     __________________________________________________________
                       • Adv. S. S. Khoche h/f. Palodkar Deodatt P. for the
                          Petitioner
                       • Mr. N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for State
                       • Adv. A. M. Karad for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - Absent
                     __________________________________________________________

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

                                         DATE         : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026

                     ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]

                     1)             Learned     Advocate     Mr.   Khoche        holding       for

                     Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

                     that the order under contempt is complied with.

                     2)             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




                     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.