Bombay High Court

BABAN NAMDEO KAKDE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed as there is no surviving ground for contempt due to the passage of time and subsequent orders.

Summary

The petitioners, Baban Namdeo Kakde and another, filed a contempt petition (No. 485 of 2012) alleging that the State of Maharashtra and other respondents had committed contempt. The petitioners argued that due to the passage of time and subsequent orders, there was no surviving ground for contempt. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petition was rendered moot. The Court examined whether the petition remained maintainable in view of the elapsed time and the effect of later orders. Finding that the alleged contempt could no longer be established, the Court held that the petition could not proceed. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of. The judgment was delivered by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on 10 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition is maintainable given the lapse of time and subsequent orders that extinguish the alleged contempt.

Subjects

contempt of court
limitation
procedural law
petition dismissed
jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42240

                                                                         485.12CP

                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          908 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 485 OF 2012
                                   IN WP NO.9606/2011

                              BABAN NAMDEO KAKDE & ANOTHER
                                               VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
                                                  ...
                      Advocate for the petitioners : Mr.Ramraje Deshmukh h/f.
                                         Mr.S.V.Deshmukh
                            AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.A.S.Shinde
                          Advocate for Respondent no.4 : Mr.S.B.Parnere
                                                  …

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

                                       DATE     :    10.09.2026


                 P.C. :


                 1]           The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

                 that due to passage of time and subsequent orders, nothing

                 survives in the present contempt petition.



                 2]           In view of the same, the Contempt Petition stands

                 disposed of.



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

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…