In a contempt petition, the Court observed that the impugned order was complied with on 22nd September 2016 by the payment of the due amount. Consequently, the Court held that the contempt stands purged and disposed of the contempt petition with 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.
1 cp 119.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 119 OF 2016 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4298 OF 2007
Dinesh Shankar Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri S. H. Panchal, Advocate h/f Shri V. B. Garud, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondents/State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2016.
PER COURT :
. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that, the order of which contempt is alleged has been complied with on 22nd September, 2016.
2 cp 119.16
[ K. L. WADANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Oct. 16
Dinesh Shankar Patil
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
K. L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
