Bombay High Court
BALASAHEB BALIKRAM GAIKWADversusRAJGOPA DEORA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
All the continuation contempt petitions are infructuous and stand disposed as the contempt orders have been complied with.
Summary
A series of continuation contempt petitions (Nos. 30, 44, 48, 51, 52, 65, 67, 68, 81 of 2012) were filed by various petitioners against Rajgopal Deora and others. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Sharad S. Shinde and Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar, argued that the contempt orders had not been complied with. The Court examined whether the contempt orders remained outstanding. It found that the orders had been fully complied with, rendering the petitions infructuous. Consequently, the Court ordered that all the contempt petitions stand disposed. The judgment was delivered by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav on 3 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the contempt orders against the respondents have been complied with
- Whether the continuation contempt petitions remain maintainable
Subjects
- contempt
- continuation petition
- order complied
- disposal
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Aurangabad bench
Judgment
(1)
902 to 910.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 CONT. PETITION NO. 30 OF 2012
IN WP/4045/2011
DEVIDAS BANKATRAO SAWANT
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T. G. Gaikwad
….
AND
903 CONT. PETITION NO. 44 OF 2012
IN WP/4030/2011
BABU RANBA NEHARKAR
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA SECRETARY CO OPL AND TEXTILES DEPTT
MUMBAI AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T.G. Gaikwad
….
AND
904 CONT. PETITION NO. 48 OF 2012
IN WP/4029/2011
RAVAN VISHWANATH SHINDE
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. N. B. Patil
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T.G. Gaikwad
….
AND
(2)
902 to 910.odt
905 CONT. PETITION NO. 51 OF 2012
IN WP/4025/2011
RAVAN MAROTI KEKAN
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T.G. Gaikwad
…..
AND
906 CONT. PETITION NO. 52 OF 2012
IN WP/4026/2011
NARAYAN RAMRAO NEHARKAR
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T. G. Gaikwad
….
AND
907 CONT. PETITION NO. 65 OF 2012
IN WP/4046/2011
DATTATRAYA SAMBHAJI CHAVAN
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. G.A. Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T. G. Gaikwad
…
AND
908 CONT. PETITION NO. 67 OF 2012
IN WP/4028/2011
PRALHAD SAKHARAM LOMTE
VERSUS
RAJGOPAL DEORA AND ORS
(3)
902 to 910.odt
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. R. D. Raut
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T. G. Gaikwad
…
AND
909 CONT. PETITION NO. 68 OF 2012
IN WP/4024/2011
SUBRAO FAKIRJI PANDE
VERSUS
RAJGOPA DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T. G. Gaikwad
…
AND
910 CONT. PETITION NO. 81 OF 2012
IN WP/4031/2011
BALASAHEB BALIKRAM GAIKWAD
VERSUS
RAJGOPA DEORA AND ORS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad S. Shinde h/f
Mr. V. P. Bhavthankar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. T. G. Gaikwad
…
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
ORDER (PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J):-
1. Learned counsel Mr. Sharad S. Shinde holding for Mr. V. P.
Bhavthankar, advocate for the petitioners submits that, all these
(4)
902 to 910.odt
contempt petitions have become infructutous, as the order under
contempt is complied with.
2. In view of the same, all the contempt petitions stand disposed
of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
Checking your session…