The Court held that since the order which was the subject of contempt allegations has been complied with, there is no warrant to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction and discharged the contempt petition.
The Contempt Petition is disposed of as there is no warrant to proceed upon compliance of the impugned order.
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.
(911) cp-480.15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.480 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2881 OF 2011
Sarjerao Nivrutti Shingade : Petitioner. Versus Prashant Tulsidas Kate and ors. : Respondents.
Mr. Y Lengare I/by Mrs. Suman Y Lengare for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit P Kulkarni for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. R M Shinde, AGP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 01st NOVEMBER 2018
P.C.
1 In view of the fact that the order of which the contempt is alleged
has been complied with, there is now no warrant to proceed in the contempt
jurisdiction. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. The documents of the Bank are taken on record and marked as “X” Collectively for identification.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J]
[R. M. SAVANT, J]
1 of 1
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Contempt Petition can be proceeded with when the impugned order has been complied with.
Sarjerao Nivrutti Shingade
Prashant Tulsidas Kate
R. M. Savant
Nitin W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court