Contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance with a previous order directing the Respondent to decide a proposal within eight weeks. The Court found the previous order lacked a definite time-bound schedule.
Contempt petition dismissed as the prior order did not specify a time-bound schedule for decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(CP 6 of 2014)
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION No.6 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION No.4801 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.2106 OF 2013
Tirupati Pratishtan's Andhori Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary, Samdeep Santaram Rabbewar ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents **********
None for Petitioner Mr.A.I. Patel-AGP for Respondent No.1
CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2014
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner.
1/2
(CP 6 of 2014)
been given to decide in a time bound schedule. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. We, however, hope and trust that the Respondents shall decide the proposal as early as possible as directed by this Court. Contempt petition is disposed of.
Vaishali Tikam
2/2
Tirupati Pratishtan's Andhori Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur Through its Secretary, Samdeep Santaram Rabbewar
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
V. M. Kanade
P.D. Kode
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
