The court rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that he complied with the order, albeit belatedly, thereby purging contempt. The matter is disposed of without costs.
Contempt stood purged; contempt petition disposed of; 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 No.156/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 156 OF 2015 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2014
Shivaji Kondaji Tompe.
Petitioner.
Versus
Abhimanyu Rathunath Kale & anr.
Respondents.
Mr. I.D. Maniyar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL,JJ.
Dated : 2nd August , 2018.
PER COURT :-
. Mr. Pulkundwar, the learned Counsel submits that the
request of the petitioner is considered and the same is negatived.
The petitioner was asked to report at the other place than Naxalite
area, but the petitioner refused. According to Mr. Maniyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner the said place is at far distance.
(2) CP No.156/2015
per the present policy, in accordance with law.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE
vdd/
Shivaji Kondaji Tompe
Abhimanyu Rathunath Kale
Respondent No. 2
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sunil K. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
