Bombay High Court

BABU NAGU PAWAR DIED TH LRS PARWATABAI BABU PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

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

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non‑payment of rental compensation ordered in a prior proceeding. Respondent No.5 submitted an affidavit stating that the compensation was paid in 2011. The court noted that the petition had not been circulated since 2013, indicating that the grievance was likely resolved. Relying on the respondent’s affidavit and the lack of recent activity, the court held that the contempt order had been complied with. The petition was therefore disposed, with a liberty to approach the appropriate remedy if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition is maintainable when the alleged contempt (non‑payment of rental compensation) has been complied with
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any further relief despite compliance

Subjects

contempt of court
rental compensation
compliance
petition disposal
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42520-DB

                                                                         455.2012CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 3 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 455 OF 2012
                                              IN WP/5940/2011
                         BABU NAGU PAWAR DIED TH LRS PARWATABAI BABU PAWAR
                                                    VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS
                                                       ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.J. Salgare


                                     CORAM :        SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                    VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.
                                     DATE      :    15.09.2026

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


                 1.         None for the petitioner.
                 2.         Respondent no.5 has filed affidavit-in-reply and
                 has stated that the amount of rental compensation is paid to
                 the petitioner in the year 2011.
                 3.         In view of the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.5,
                 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
                 petitioner must have been redressed.
                 5.         In view of the above, the contempt petition is
                 disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioner is
                 aggrieved by the     quantum of amount determined by
                 respondent, it would be open for the petitioner 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…