Bombay High Court
DR MANISHA BHARAT SALUNKHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Both interim applications were allowed as prayed.
Summary
Dr. Manisha Bharat Salunkhe filed a writ petition (No. 25 of 2024) and a contempt petition (No. 4 of 2024) before the Bombay High Court, seeking interim relief against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The applicant filed Interim Application No. 11265 of 2025 in the writ petition and Interim Application No. 11103 of 2025 in the contempt petition. Both applications were heard by a two‑judge bench comprising Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Ajit B. Kadetankar. After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court found that the relief sought in the prayer clause (b) of each application was justified. Consequently, the Court allowed both interim applications and disposed of them accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim relief sought in Interim Application No. 11265 of 2025 (writ petition) should be granted
- Whether the interim relief sought in Interim Application No. 11103 of 2025 (contempt petition) should be granted
Subjects
- interim relief
- writ petition
- contempt petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
26-IA-11265-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11265 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2024
Dr. Manisha Bharat Salunkhe … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11103 OF 2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 4 OF 2024
Dr. Manisha Bharat Salunkhe … Applicant
Versus
Mahesh J Chothe & Anr. … Respondents
——————
Adv. S. R. Vasekar i/by Adv. S. A. Rajeshirke for the Applicants.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
TALLE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
SHUBHAM
ASHOKRAO
Digitally signed by
Date : 17th January 2026.
TALLE SHUBHAM
ASHOKRAO
Date: 2026.01.17
16:18:40 +0530
Shubham 1 of 2
26-IA-11265-2025.doc
PER COURT :
1. Heard.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, both the applications are
allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
3. Both the Interim Applications stand disposed of.
[ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. ]
Shubham 2 of 2
Checking your session…