Bombay High Court

NILESH RAJENDRA TARKASE AND ANOTHERversusPRAKASH BACHHAV

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners, Nilesh Rajendra Tarkase and another, filed a contempt petition in 2017 but failed to engage any counsel despite ample opportunity. The Court observed that the petitioners showed no interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution. No substantive issues on the merits of contempt were addressed. The dismissal was ordered by a two‑judge bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioners' failure to engage counsel

Subjects

contempt
non‑prosecution
petition dismissal
high court
legal representation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31043-DB

                                                                           588.2017CP

                                                      1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           29 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 588 OF 2017
                                     IN WP/3613/2017

                       NILESH RAJENDRA TARKASE AND ANOTHER
                                          VERSUS
                                   PRAKASH BACHHAV
                                             ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs.U.S. Bhosale

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

                                         DATE         :   27.07.2026

                 P.C. :


                 1]       None for the petitioners.
                 2]       It appears from the record that despite sufficient
                 opportunity, the petitioners have not engaged any Advocate
                 till today.
                 3]       Petition is of the year 2017, and therefore, it appears
                 that the petitioners are not interested in proceeding with the
                 matter. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed for non-
                 prosecution.




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


                 sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…