Pradeep Kulbir Sethi Thr Its Power Of Attorney Mr. Parakram Sethi v. Maharahshtra Industrial Development Corporation
by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date:
2025.11.07 17:30:37 +0530 ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR 6.CP696.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11951 OF 2024 Pradeep Kulbir Sethi.
... Petitioner.
V/s.
Maharashtra Industrial Development & Ors.
... Respondents.
--- Mr.Vinod P. Sangvikar a/w. Mr. Shubham Sonawale, Mr. Siddheshwar Galande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate a/w. Meet Vora & Kinjal Jail, Advocate for Respondents.
--- CORAM :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE :
6th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :
1.
The learned Advocate representing the Respondent MIDC submits on instructions that the concerned Respondents are tendering an apology because they did not decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 29/9/2022, in deference to the order dated 28th April, 2025 passed by the Writ bench. He submits that henceforth, such incident would not occur. It is further stated that the representation would be decided by the Competent Authority by following the due procedure as laid down by Talwalkar
6.CP696.2025.odt law within such period as is set out by this Court. 2.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the above statement of the MIDC be recorded and by granting a further time line, this Petition may be disposed off.
3.
In view of the above, we direct that the Competent Authority would abide by the order dated 28th April, 2025 and decide the pending representation on its own merits by following the due procedure as laid down by law, on or before 31st December, 2025. 4.
In view of the above, this Contempt Petition is disposed off. 5.
We make it clear that if the MIDC once again does not decide the representation within the time line, we would consider the conduct of the Competent Authority as aggravated contempt. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Talwalkar