Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

TRIMBAK DAYARAM WAYKOLE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Since the State complied with the earlier contempt order, the contempt petitions stand disposed.

Summary

Petitioners Trimbak Dayaram Waykole and another filed contempt petitions (Nos. 462 and 461 of 2012) against the State of Maharashtra alleging non‑compliance with a prior contempt order. The petitioners, through counsel Shinde Shankarrao G., submitted that the State had now complied with the order. The State, represented by Mr. S. J. Salgare, A.G.P., did not contest the claim of compliance. The bench, comprising Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav, examined the submission and found the compliance satisfactory. Consequently, the court held that no aspect of the contempt orders remained outstanding and ordered the petitions to be disposed. The order was pronounced on 8 September 2026.

Issues considered

  • What is the effect of the State's compliance with the earlier contempt order on the pending contempt petitions?

Subjects

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

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41579

                                                              905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2012




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2012
                                      IN WP/3223/2012

                                    Trimbak Dayaram Waykole And Another
                                                    Versus
                                     The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                     __________________________________________________________
                       • Adv. Shinde Shankarrao G. for the Petitioners
                       • Mr. S. J. Salgare, A.G.P. for State
                     __________________________________________________________

                                          AND/WITH
                               CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 461 OF 2012
                                       IN WP/3322/2012
                                              …

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

                                          DATE        : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026

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


                     1)              Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                     the order under contempt is complied with.

                     2)              In   view   of    the   same,     nothing        survives

                     in the present Contempt Petitions and the same stand

                     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.