Bombay High Court

ABHIMAN NARHARIK METRE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

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

Summary

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging non‑payment of rental compensation ordered by the court. Respondent No.3 filed an affidavit stating that the compensation was deposited on 09‑12‑2013, implying that the petitioners had withdrawn the amount. The court noted that, given the passage of time and lack of circulation of the petition since 2013, the grievance appeared to have been redressed. Relying on the respondent's affidavit, the court held that the contempt order had been complied with. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed, with a liberty to approach the appropriate remedy if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt order requiring payment of rental compensation has been complied with
Whether the petitioners are entitled to further relief despite alleged compliance

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
compliance
petition disposal
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42461

                                                                        453.2012CP

                                               1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         2 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 453 OF 2012
                                  IN WP/5287/2011

                           ABHIMAN NARHARIK METRE AND ORS
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS
                                             ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde
                 Advocate for Respondent no.3 : Mr.Rohit Patwardhan h/f
                 Mr.Sangle S.G.

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

                                    DATE      :    15.09.2026

                 ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.):


                 1.        None for the petitioners.
                 2.        Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit-in-reply and
                 has stated that the amount of rental compensation is
                 deposited on 09.12.2013. With the passage of time, it is
                 presumed that the petitioner must have withdrawn that
                 amount.
                 3.        In view of the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.3,
                 the order under contempt is complied with.
                 4.        Even otherwise, the petition is not even circulated
                 from 2013. Thus, it appears that the grievance of the
                 petitioners must have been redressed.
                 5.        In view of the above, the contempt petition is
                 disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioners are
                 aggrieved by the    quantum of amount determined by
                                                       453.2012CP

                               2

respondent, it would be open for the petitioners to agitate the
grievance by availing the appropriate remedy under law.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]            [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                           JUDGE


sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…