In Contempt Petition No. 574/2013, the Court disposed of the petition because the petitioner submitted that the impugned order had been complied with.
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. 574-13
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION No. 574 OF 2013
Dattatraya Bhimrao Gore ... Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Ramchandra Patil & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Chetan Agrawal, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. M. Kulkarni, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, for Respondent No. 3. Mr. S. K. Shinde, Govt. Pleader for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & P. D. KODE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2014
PC.
. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the order has been complied, and therefore, contempt petition does not survive. Copy of the agreement between the parties, tendered by the parties, is taken on record. Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.
[P. D. KODE, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
1 / 1
Dattatraya Bhimrao Gore
Sanjay Ramchandra Patil
V. M. KANADE
P. D. KODE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
