Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VINAYAK NANAJI KENDREversusTHE CIDCO BOMBAY AND ORS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was disposed of as nothing survives in it.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition in 2009 alleging that the respondents had failed to decide a complaint dated 24 December 2001 by the deadline of 30 June 2004, as ordered in a prior contempt order. The court noted that no further action on the contempt petition had been taken after 2013. Considering the lapse of time, the court presumed that the respondents had complied with the original order. Consequently, the court held that nothing remained to be adjudicated in the contempt petition. The petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the contempt petition filed in 2009 remains maintainable given the passage of time and presumed compliance with the original contempt order.

Subjects

  • contempt of court
  • petition disposal
  • presumption of compliance
  • lapse of time

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43381


                                              1                 905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2009



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2009
                                    IN WP/4855/2003
                                 VINAYAK NANAJI KENDRE
                                         VERSUS
                               THE CIDCO BOMBAY AND ORS
                                            ...
            None for the petitioner
            Adv. U. S. Bhosale, AGP for Respondents-State
                                            ...
                                   CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                             VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                        DATED : 22/09/2026
            Order (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J. )

            .          None for the petitioner.

            2.         In the order under contempt, the directions were given to the

            respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to decide the complaint dated 24.12.2001

            filed by the petitioner, on or before 30.06.2004.

            3.         The notices in the contempt petition were issued in the year

            2009 and the contempt petition has not been circulated after 2013.

            With the passage of time, it is presumed that the order under

            contempt must have been complied by deciding the complaint.

            4.         In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt petition

            and the same stands disposed of.



            ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
            shivani/


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.