Disposed

Balaji Ganeshrao Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary of Home Departmend and Another

Bombay HC24 Feb 2015CP/25/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding non-compliance with a court order, the petitioner accepted compensation paid by the respondent. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent to exercise judicial grace, holding that further adjudication was unnecessary, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application and Contempt Petition disposed of with no further orders necessary.

Balaji Ganeshrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

(1) Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015 & Civil Application No. 2616 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015 (In Criminal Writ Petition No. 640 of 2005)

¶4

Balaji s/o. Ganeshrao Pawar, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rohipipalgaon, Taluka : Mudkhed, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary of Home Department, Mr. Vinit Agarwal, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

Superintendent, .. Respondents Nashik Central Prison, (No.2 - Formal party) Nashik.

¶8

Ms. Maya R. Jamdhade, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶10

With

¶11

(2) Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015 & Civil Application No. 2616 of 2015

¶12

Civil Application No. 2616 of 2015

¶13

(In Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015) (In Criminal Writ Petition No. 640 of 2005)

¶14

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mr. Vinit Agarwal, Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Applicants (Original respondents)

¶15

The Superintendent, Nashik Central Prison, .. No.2 - Formal party. Nashik.

¶16

versus

¶17

Balaji Ganeshrao Pawar, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Rohipimpalgaon, Taluka : Mudkhed, District : Nanded.

¶18

.. Non-applicant (Original claimant)

¶19

Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for the applicants.

¶20

Ms. Maya R. Jamdhade, Advocate, for the non-applicant.

¶21

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶22

DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY 2015

¶23

(3) Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015 & Civil Application No. 2616 of 2015

¶24

PER COURT :

¶25

Civil Application No. 2616 of 2015 is filed by the contemnor praying therein for exemption of personal appearance of respondent no.1 in Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015, as directed by this court.

¶26

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the order, of which disobedience has been alleged in the Contempt Petition, has been complied with and amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation is paid to the petitioner by cheque bearing No. 144547, dated 16th February 2015, drawn on Stand Bank of India, Nashik Road Branch. Copy of the receipt of the payment received by the petitioner has been placed on record along with the application at Exhibit R-1.

¶27

In that view of the matter, presence of respondent no.1 is dispensed with.

¶28

Since the order, of which disobedience has been alleged by the petitioner, has been complied with by the respondent no.1, in our opinion, further adjudication of this Contempt Petition is not necessary. It is true, that as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court, order is not complied within three months, as directed. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram & others, reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 766, has observed that ‘Even where the order of court is complied with, subsequent to receipt of notice of contempt, court should show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with action for contempt’ .

¶29

(4) Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2015 & Civil Application No. 2616 of 2015

¶30

In that view of the matter, no further orders are necessary in the Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition as also Civil Application accordingly stand disposed of.

¶31

( A.M. BADAR ) ( S.S. SHINDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

puranik / CP25.15etc

Balaji Ganeshrao Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary of Home Departmend and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Ganeshrao Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary of Home Departmend and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas S/O Vithal Ghongte and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balaji S/O Venkat Pashime Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Nana Trimbak Tadas.

Vishal Gangadhar Dadewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaligram S/O Malhari Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gangaram S/O Hulappa Chinchalwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.