Bombay High Court

MANTHAN MOHAN NIMBALKARversusSnehal A Govekar

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court recorded the respondent’s undertaking and disposed of the contempt petition, warning that non‑compliance would attract aggravated contempt.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent's Scrutiny Committee had not decided his tribe claim within the time prescribed by a prior High Court order. The Court heard the matter and the respondent’s Additional Government Pleader, on instruction, undertook that the pending tribe claim would be decided within three weeks from the date of the hearing. The Court recorded this undertaking as a binding promise and disposed of the contempt petition. It clarified that failure to decide the claim within the stipulated period would amount to aggravated contempt of the Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the matter was left to the Scrutiny Committee to comply with the undertaking.

Issues considered

What constitutes contempt for non‑compliance with a Court’s direction to decide a tribal claim within a specified period?
Whether a petition for contempt is maintainable when the respondent offers a fresh undertaking to comply.

Subjects

contempt of court
tribal claim
scrutiny committee
undertaking
High Court order

Judgment

                                   (1)
                                                        C. P. 653-2026.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2026
                              IN
                 WRIT PETITION NO 5957 OF 2026

                  MANTHAN MOHAN NIMBALKAR
                          VERSUS
                     SNEHAL A. GOVEKAR

                                  ...
         Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. Kishor T. Shirrurkar
            A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. A. S. Shinde
                                  ....

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

                  DATED :        SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

ORDER

1.    Heard.



2.    Though the petition is filed for contempt of the order passed by

this Court directing the respondent/Scrutiny Committee to decide

tribe claim of the petitioner within certain period, but today the

learned A.G.P., on instructions, submits that the tribe claim, which is

pending before the respondent/Scrutiny Committee will be decided

within three weeks from today.



3.     We record the statement of learned A.G.P. as an undertaking to

this Court and dispose of this petition.   It is made clear that if the
                                (2)
                                                    C. P. 653-2026.odt
tribe claim is not decided within a stipulated period, the Scrutiny

Committee would face aggravated form of contempt.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)          (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                              JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…