The petitioner in a contempt petition stated that the order was complied with, leading the court to dispose of the petition without any substantive discussion or separate grounds.
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.
11.4CP.400.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 400 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 667 OF 2015 (Shankar s/o Tukaram Ugalmugle .vs. Smt. Deepa S. Mudhol)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioner,
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATED : APRIL 11, 2017.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the order is complied with and as such, the petitioner no more desires to proceed further.
The petition is disposed of as such.
Judge
Judge
J.
Shankar s/o Tukaram Ugalmugle
Smt. Deepa S. Mudhol
B.R. Gavai
A.S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
