Dismissed

Gautam Laxman Gavali v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2010CP/66/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-observance of court directions by a Talathi. The court found no specific directions from itself that were disobeyed and held that subsequent administrative communications were insufficient to impose liability. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed and disposed of as withdrawn.

Gautam Laxman Gavali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.66 OF 2010

¶5

IN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO. 135 OF 1984

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J.
Date : July 09, 2010

¶10

1.Advocate Vanita Sangole, holding
for Smt.M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for
thepetitioner,statesthat
Respondent No.5 has not obeyed the
order/directions alleged to have been
given by this court.

¶11

2.Learned counsel drew my attention
to the judgment in Second Appeal No.
135 of 1984 decided on 28.7.2010, the
copy of which is at Exhibit A to the
contempt petition. Perusal of the
said judgment shows that the second
appeal was preferred by original

¶12

¶13

Defendant No.2 Sukhdeo against the
judgment and order of the learned
AssistantJudge,Osmanabad,
dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.
149 of 1982. That appeal was filed
against the judgment of the learned
CivilJudge,JuniorDivision,

¶14

Paranda, in Miscellaneous Civil
Application No.36 of 1981.

¶15

3.As can be seen from paragraph 4
of judgment in the said second
appeal, it is held by the learned
AssistantSessionsJudgethat
defendant did not acquire title to
the land survey No.58-D and defendant
Parubai was not the owner thereof.
The Court held that the plaintiff was
the absolute owner of the land in
which plaintiff's mother-in-law had
1/2 share. Ultimatley, second appeal
was dismissed.

¶16

04.From the judgment in Second
Appeal, there does not appear any

¶17

¶18

directions to have been given by this
court which the contempt petitioner
claims to have been disobeyed by
respondents.

¶19

05.Italsoappearsthat
subsequently, on the basis of
judgment given by the civil court,
various authorities were moved and
ultimately by letter dated 19.3.2009,
theDivisionalCommissioner,
Aurangabad, informed the Collector,
Osmanabad to take entries in the
revenue record as per the decision of
the Court by following due procedure
and to report compliance.

¶20

06.Mere directions given by the
Divisional Commissioner to the
Collector would not be sufficient for
Respondent No.5-Talathi to take any
action. In the circumstances, it
cannot be said that Respondent No.5
Talathi can be held to have committed
any contempt as alleged by the

¶21

¶22

petitioner. Contempt petition is
already dismissed against Respondent
Nos. 2 to 4.

¶23

07.In the facts and circumstances,
this contempt petition is dismissed.

¶24

Contempt petition disposed of as
withdrawn.

¶25

pnd/cp66.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)

Gautam Laxman Gavali v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Laxman Gavali v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maruti Apparao Bhoite Vs Radhabai W/O Murlidhar and Ors.

Madhavrao Manikrao Wadikar. Vs Trivenibai Madhavrao Wadikar.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shamsunder Piraji Mankawar and Ors.

Appasaheb Mohanrao Chede Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Durgabai Kundlik Aher and Ors. Vs Rambhau Narayan Kharwade and Ors.

Nagesh Shripatrao Kulkarni Vs Putlabai Vithal Narsale and Ors.