← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/150/2026disposed off

Bhausaheb Gangadhar Pinjan v. Jaykumar Gore

2026-03-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 150 OF 2026 Bhausaheb Gangadhar Pinjan ....Petitioner

Versus

Jaykumar Gore ....Respondent ---- Mr. Anuj Tiwari, for the Petitioner.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP. a/w Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 7th MARCH, 2026 P.C. :- 1.

We have perused the order of the Writ Court dated 06.11.2025. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the pending appeal preferred by the Petitioner by 31.12.2025. Having heard the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is an admitted position that our direction setting out a timeline has not been complied with.

2.

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that a hearing would be conducted on such date as may be fixed by this Court, keeping in view that no hearing has been conducted in the proceedings after 8th October 2025. He further submits that all

the contesting parties / stakeholders would be called upon to address the Authority on the date so fixed by this Court. 3.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is not interested in taking these contempt proceedings to a logical end, as his interest lies in securing a proper decision on his Appeal. He further submits that the Petitioner is willing to seek disposal of this Petition today itself, provided the hearing is scheduled on a specific date and the Petitioner is permitted to participate therein. He points out that on 08.10.2025, the Petitioner and his Advocate were present in Mantralaya, in the chamber of the Appellate Authority, and they possess the entry pass of Mantralaya. An application was tendered on that date in the proceedings, and yet the Appellate Authority has recorded that the Petitioner was absent. This is a dishonest recording of the roznama. The Petitioner and his Advocate, who had appeared in Mantralaya on the said date, are willing to file an Affidavit indicating their presence and appearance. 4.

If this be the truth, we are disturbed by the conduct of the Appellate Authority. However, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that instead of spending time on such an issue,

the pending Appeal may be decided on its merits. 5.

As such, by the consent of the parties, we record as under :

A) The Petitioner and his Legal Representative would be permitted to enter the chamber of the Appellate Authority at 12:00 noon on 2nd April, 2026.

B) The Appellate Authority would issue notice to the other stakeholders in the Appeal, within 7 days from today, for arranging the hearing at 12:00 noon on 2nd April, 2026. C) The Petitioner / Legal Representative and all others can tender written notes of submissions.

D) The proceedings may be concluded on 2nd April 2026, if all the parties advance their oral submissions and/or tender their written notes of submissions. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority shall pass a reasoned order on or before 30th April, 2026. Each and every contention of the Petitioner and the other stakeholders, shall be considered

in the order.

E) During the hearing, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner shall tender his e-mail address before the Appellate Authority. The final order of the Appellate Authority to be delivered on 30.04.2026, shall be served upon the Petitioner through the said e-mail address within 24 hours of the pronouncement of the order and also on all other stakeholders.

6.

With the consent of the Petitioner, this Contempt Petition is disposed off.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)