In this contempt petition, the court observed that the grievance raised by the petitioner does not survive following the reply from respondents and disposed of the petition without further ado.
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 10-CP-365-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 365 OF 2016
IN WP/12553/2015
CHAYA RAJU MAGARE
VERSUS
GITANJALI GUPTA AND OTHERS
Mr.C.V.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.D.G.Nagode, A.S.G.I. for respondent no.1
Mr.A.B.Girase, G.P. for respondent no.2
Mr.D.K.Thoke, Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 05, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard.
2.In the light of the reply presented on
behalf of the respondents, the grievance raised by
the petitioner in this Contempt Petition does not
survive. The Contempt Petition accordingly stands
disposed of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.]
kbp
2 10-CP-365-16.odt
CHAYA RAJU MAGARE
GITANJALI GUPTA
R.M. BORDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court