The Court held that the contempt petition was essentially for enforcing its earlier order. Contempt jurisdiction cannot grant substantive or additional relief. The petition was disposed of accordingly, without prejudice to pending writ proceedings.
Petition disposed of; no additional relief granted in contempt jurisdiction.
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.
4.CP-357-10.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.357 OF 2010
Mr.Kisan Rajaram Jadhav … Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
Mr.Siddesh Pilankar i/b Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner.
Mr.M.M.Pable, AGP for Respondent No.1(State).
Mr.K.P. Shah i/b Mr.Avinash Avhad for Respondent Nos.4 to 6.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE :- NOVEMBER 8, 2019
P.C. :-
the petitioner, is not something which can be resolved in contempt jurisdiction. In contempt jurisdiction, this Court cannot
Page 1 of 2
M.M.Salgaonkar
4.CP-357-10.doc
grant substantive or additional relief. The nature of proceedings themselves are indicative of the fact that this jurisdiction is exceptional and to be sparingly used. The contempt petition has served its purpose. It is disposed of accordingly.
(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
M.M.Salgaonkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition styled as a contempt petition is in reality for enforcement of a prior order of this Court.
Whether substantive relief can be granted in contempt jurisdiction regarding the date of commencement of an appointed post.
Kisan Rajaram Jadhav
State of Maharashtra
Ors.
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
R. I. CHAGLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
