In a contempt petition arising from a writ petition, the Court noted that the parties were unanimous that previous directions had been complied with. The petitioner was informed of the order. The petition was disposed of as nothing survived.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
972 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.75 OF 2023 IN WP/1202/2022
NAMRATA DAGDU SONWANE VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Panpatte V. S. AGP for Respondent : Mr.M.M.Nerlikar
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ. Dated: March 23, 2023
...
PER COURT :-
. The parties are unanimous that directions of this Court have been complied with as mentioned in the afdavit-in-reply, albeit, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he has not been informed about passing of the order. The petitioner would have his own remedies to challenge the order, if he desires.
( M. M. SATHAYE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
SPT
NAMRATA DAGDU SONWANE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MANGESH S. PATIL
M. M. SATHAYE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
