Disposed
Mahatma Phule Pratisthan, Vairag v. Mahadeo Ambedkar and Anr.
Bombay HCCP/395/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
dgm 1
27cp3952011.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 395 OF 2011
Mahatma Phule Pratisthan, Vairag ….Petitioner. Vs. Mahadeo Ambedkar and anr ….Respondents.
Mr. I. M. Khairdi for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 23.01.2015
P.C.:
Heard.
By this contempt petition, the Petitioner seeks action against the Respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, for wilful disobedience of the order dated 3.10.2011.
It is stated that despite the grant of adinterim relief in favour of the Petitioner in terms of prayer (c) in Writ Petition No.7918 of 2011, the Respondent No.1 continued to pay the salary to the Respondent No.2. It is fairly stated that after the Writ Petition No.7918/2011 was allowed, the Respondent No.1 has stopped paying the salary.
1/2
dgm 2 27cp3952011.sxw
In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to proceed with the
contempt petition any further. The contempt petition is disposed of with no
order as to costs.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed with a contempt petition against a party for continued non-compliance of an interim order.
Mahatma Phule Pratisthan
Mahadeo Ambedkar
Vasanti A. Naik
C. V. Bhadang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court