Bombay High CourtCP/54/2017disposedoff

Sushil S. Raut And Others v. Avinash S/O Wamanrao Singam

2020-03-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

911 CP 54-2017.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2128 OF 2016(D) Sushil S. Raut, Yawatmal ...Versus...

Avinash s/o Wamanrao Singam and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders or directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------- - Shri O.A. Ghare, Counsel h/f A.M. Ghare, Counsel for petitioner Shri Abhay Sambre, Counsel for respondent nos.1, 4, 6 to 14 & 16 to 19 CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 06.03.2020 The office-note indicates that the Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4, 6 to 14 and 16 to 19 have not deposited the amount. The order of this Court dated 05.05.2017, was a conditional one, that in case the names and addresses were not furnished on the same day, the respondents would be directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

It is admitted by Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the names and addresses were furnished on 05.05.2017, itself, in light of which, the question of making any deposit does not arise.

Office to correct its record accordingly.

911 CP 54-2017.odt Mr. Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 4, 6 to 14 and 16 to 19 submits, that the pay fixation as per the rules, in light of the fact that the petitioner is holding post since 02.07.2012, has already been done, which statement finds place in the rejoinder by respondent No.6 on behalf of respondent No.3, dated 03.03.2020, copy of which, is tendered across the bar.

In view of the statement made above, nothing survives in the contempt petition, as the order stands duly complied with. Hence, the contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE J.Pethe