Bombay High Court
SHAMSHAD MIYALAL NAIKWADIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASTRA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER MUMBAI
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Paragraph 3 of the order is not an interim injunction and there is no contempt as the private respondents have not engaged in contumacious conduct.
Summary
The petitioners alleged contempt on the ground that paragraph 3 of the Court's order dated 29 August 2024, which stated that "none of the parties would claim any disbursement" pending settlement, amounted to an interim injunction restraining the private respondents from claiming compensation. The petitioners argued that the respondents' claim for disbursement violated this provision. The Court examined the order holistically and held that the paragraph was a procedural observation intended to preserve the settlement process, not a binding interim restriction. Since no settlement was reached, the respondents were not in contempt for seeking disbursement. Finding no contumacious conduct, the Court declined to exercise its contempt jurisdiction and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether paragraph 3 of the order dated 29 August 2024 constitutes an interim injunction restraining the private respondents from claiming disbursement.
- Whether the respondents' claim for disbursement amounts to contempt of court.
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt petition in these circumstances.
Subjects
- contempt
- interim relief
- settlement
- disbursement
- civil procedure
- contempt jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8476-DB
23-CP-566-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 566 OF 2025
Shamshad Miyalal Naikwadi And Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Office Of The Government ...Respondents
Pleader Mumbai And Ors.
——————
Mr. Prafulla Shah (Through VC), for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Adv. I.M.Khairdi a/w Adv. M.S.Mulla, Adv. Ruturaj Kadam, for the Respondent
Nos. 3 to 6.
——————
Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
P. C. :
1. The contempt is alleged of the order dated 29 th August, 2024
which reads as under :
“1. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Mr.
Sabban, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6, on the
instructions of his clients who are present in the Court, fairly state that an
attempt can be made to resolve the dispute on apportionment of
compensation. Mr. Sabban has also informed Mr. Shah of the amounts which
can be offered to the petitioners.
2. In our opinion and it is in the interest of parties that a settlement can be
worked out. Accordingly, stand over to 5 September 2024. To be shown on
the 'Supplementary Board', to be listed under the caption 'For Settlement'.
3. Needless to observe that in the meantime, none of the parties would claim
any disbursement.”
2. The contention of Mr. Shah is that paragraph 3 of the order
constitutes an interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of
Arya Chavan 1 of 2
23-CP-566-2025.doc
the Petition, and as disbursement has been claimed by the Respondent,
contempt is alleged.
3. The order of 29th August, 2024 will have to be read holistically.
This Court noted that an attempt can be made to resolve the dispute on
apportionment of compensation, and in view thereof observed that in
the meantime, none of the parties would claim any disbursement. It is
an admitted position that settlement did not take place. Paragraph 3 of
the order dated 29th August, 2024 cannot be construed as
ad-interim/interim relief passed restraining the private Respondents
from claiming disbursement. The arrangement observed in paragraph 3
of the order was only pending the settlement in order to ensure that
the issue is not precipitated.
4. As there is no settlement, it cannot be said that by withdrawal of
the compensation, there is non-compliance of the order dated 29 th
August, 2024. The contention of Mr. Shah that the order was continued
from time to time is misconceived, as subsequent order notes “ad-
interim relief, if any, to be continued till the next date”. As we do not
find any contumacious conduct on part of the private Respondents, we
are not inclined to exercise contempt jurisdiction. The Petition stands
disposed of.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Arya Chavan 2 of 2
Checking your session…