In this contempt petition filed in WP/10325/2013, the bench held that since the petitioner had already challenged the correctness of the impugned order through a representation that was considered, there was no necessity to entertain the contempt petition, which was accordingly dismissed.
The Contempt Petition is dismissed. No costs.
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.
cp332.15
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2015
IN WP/10325/2013
VASANT RAMBHAU BHADANE VERSUS R.V. GAME
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Surendra V. Suryawanshi Advocate for Respondent (sole) : Ms. Vaishali S. Choudhari
CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2015
P.C. :-
vre/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present contempt petition requires consideration given the prior order challenging the contemned order.
Vasant Rambhau Bhadane
R.V. Game
A. V. Nirgude
V. K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
