The High Court at Aurangabad held that the petitioner filed a reply affidavit and the appointed respondent complied with the earlier order. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the contempt petition without further observation.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
14 CONT. PETITION NO. 762 OF 2017
IN WP/5107/2013
AMOL PRAKASH GAWADE AND OTHERS VERSUS NANDKUMAR AND OTHERS
Shri. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for petitioners.
Shri. M.M. Nerlikar,Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent - State.
Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Date: 2 APRIL 2018
ORDER:
Today learned Assistant Government Pleader has
filed reply affidavit of respondent No.2 and along with it he produced copy of appointment order showing that the order made by this Court has been complied with. Nothing survives in the matter. The contempt petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl
Amol Prakash Gawade and Others
Nandkumar and Others
Sunil K. Kotwal
T.V. Nalawade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
