← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/9/2025disposed off

Sumitra Prakash Shetty v. Uday Pingale

2026-03-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne2 pages

k 1/2 64 cp 9.25 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2025 Sumitra Prakash Shetty ....Petitioner V/S Uday Pingale & Ors.

....Respondents _________ Mr. S.G. Kudle (through video conferencing) for the Petitioner. Ms. Aaneshi Yadav (through video conferencing) with Mr. Aatish Tayade i/b Ravleen Sabarwal for Respondent-SRA.

Ms.Neha Nagotanekar for Respondent No.3.

Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional GP with Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Responent/State.

__________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 07 MARCH 2026.

P.C.:

1.

The Contempt Petition is filed alleging breach of order dated 4 February 2020 passed by this Court, by which it was directed that further steps should not be taken in pursuance of the sealing. However, it appears that subsequently an order dated 20 June 2024 was passed by this Court, paragraph 10 of which reads thus: "10.

In the light of above, the SRA is directed to hand over possession of the subject premises to the Applicant-Developer by tomorrow, i.e. 21st June 2024. As the articles of Petitioner are lying in the subject premises, let the officials of SRA along with the representative of the Developer and the Petitioner visit the subject premises tomorrow at 11.00 a.m. and make an inventory of the articles lying in the said premises in the presence of parties. The Applicant-Developer shall make an arrangement for delivering the said articles to the address provided by the Petitioner. "

katkam Page No.

1 of

k 2/2 64 cp 9.25 as.doc 2.

Thus, the possession of the subject premises is taken away from the Petitioner in pursuance of specific order passed by this Court on 20 June 2024. This Court does not appreciate the conduct of the Petitioner in not producing order dated 20 June 2024 and alleging breach of previous order passed on 4 February 2020. The Contempt Petition is wholly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:

2026.03.10 10:56:34 +0530 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM katkam Page No.

2 of