Bombay High Court

YASHWANT BALU PENDHARIversusDREAM ARIHANT INFRASTRUCTURE and COMPANY THR. DIRECTO MR. DINESH RUPRAJ JAIN AND ANR.

Decided: 6 February 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: ARIF S DOCTOR

Holding

Both contempt petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Petitioner Yashwant B. Pendhari filed Contempt Petition No.48 of 2018 and Contempt Petition No.38 of 2018 against Dream Arihant Infrastructure & Co. No counsel appeared for the petitioner on either occasion, indicating the petitioner was not desirous of prosecuting the petitions. The Court observed the lack of prosecution and consequently dismissed both contempt petitions for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to appear or prosecute a contempt petition?

Subjects

contempt of court
dismissal
want of prosecution
civil appellate jurisdiction
Bombay High Court

Judgment

                                                                          24-cp48-18.doc

     vai
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         Digitally
         signed by
         VASANT
VASANT   ANANDRAO
ANANDRAO IDHOL             CONTEMPT PETITION NO.48 OF 2018
IDHOL    Date:
         2026.02.10
                                      WITH
         10:56:14          CONTEMPT PETITION NO.38 OF 2018
         +0530



               Yashwant B. Pendhari                                  …Petitioner
                        V/s.
               Dream Arihant Infrastructure & Co.                    ...Respondent


               None for the Petitioner.

               Mr.Pradip R. Kadam for Respondent No.1.

                               CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                               DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2026.

               P.C. :-

               1.        None for the Petitioner. On the previous occasion also

               none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Hence it is clear that

               the Petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting the Petitions.

               2.        Hence both the Petitions are dismissed with for want of

               prosecution.


                                                       (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)


                                                1/1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…