A short order where the Court disposed of a contempt petition because the applicants submitted that the previous order had been complied with, stating the purpose was served. No substantive legal proposition was laid down.
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 P-2-CP-304-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2017
Seva Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
… Respondents
Mr. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, AGP for respondent No.4.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATED : 18th OCTOBER, 2019
PER COURT :-
1. Not on board. Taken on board.
2.Mr. Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits
that though the contempt petition was filed raising the ground of non
compliance of the order of this Court, post filing the contempt petition,
the order of this Court is duly complied with. It can be stated that the
purpose of approaching this Court is duly served.
3.In view of the statement of the learned counsel, the contempt
petition is disposed of.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
[ PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. ]
SMS
1 of 1
Seva Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors.
The State of Maharashtra and others
Prasanna B. Varale
R. G. Avachat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court