Contempt petition disposed of after petitioner resumed work and admitted delay in complying with earlier order was not intentional.
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.
cp243.14
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.243 OF 2014
(Prakash Kanhaiya Damre Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others)
Office Notes,Office MemorandaCourt's or Judge's orders
of Coram,appearances, Court's
orders or directions andCORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
Registrar's ordersA.M. BADAR,JJ.
DATED : 29.06.2015
Mr.A.B.Kale,Advocateforthe
petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Tope,AGPforthe
respondent/State.
Mr.R.A.Tambe, Advocate for respondent
No.2.
1.Heard.
2.Perused the petition. The
learned AGP stated in presence of
respondent No.2, who is present in-
person before the Court as per our
earlier order, that the petitioner is
now appointed and has already resumed
work.Thepetitioner'sAdvocate
admitted this. We find from the facts
and circumstances of the case that
thoughtherewasdelayin
2 cp243.14
implementation of the order passed by
this Court the delay does not appear to
be intentional. The petition stands
Disposed of.
[A.M. BADAR,J.][A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]
VishalK/cp243.14
Prakash Kanhaiya Damre
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
A.V. NIRGUDE
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court