23-CP-566-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 566 OF 2025 Shamshad Miyalal Naikwadi And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Office Of The Government Pleader Mumbai And Ors. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prafulla Shah (Through VC), for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. Adv. I.M.Khairdi a/w Adv. M.S.Mulla, Adv. Ruturaj Kadam, for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. —————— Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. Date : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 P. C. : 1. The contempt is alleged of the order dated 29th August, 2024 which reads as under : “1. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Mr. Sabban, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6, on the instructions of his clients who are present in the Court, fairly state that an attempt can be made to resolve the dispute on apportionment of compensation. Mr. Sabban has also informed Mr. Shah of the amounts which can be offered to the petitioners. 2. In our opinion and it is in the interest of parties that a settlement can be worked out. Accordingly, stand over to 5 September 2024. To be shown on the 'Supplementary Board', to be listed under the caption 'For Settlement'. 3. Needless to observe that in the meantime, none of the parties would claim any disbursement.” 2. The contention of Mr. Shah is that paragraph 3 of the order constitutes an interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of Arya Chavan 1 of 2 2026:BHC-KOL:8476-DB 23-CP-566-2025.doc the Petition, and as disbursement has been claimed by the Respondent, contempt is alleged. 3. The order of 29th August, 2024 will have to be read holistically. This Court noted that an attempt can be made to resolve the dispute on apportionment of compensation, and in view thereof observed that in the meantime, none of the parties would claim any disbursement. It is an admitted position that settlement did not take place. Paragraph 3 of the order dated 29th August, 2024 cannot be construed as ad-interim/interim relief passed restraining the private Respondents from claiming disbursement. The arrangement observed in paragraph 3 of the order was only pending the settlement in order to ensure that the issue is not precipitated. 4. As there is no settlement, it cannot be said that by withdrawal of the compensation, there is non-compliance of the order dated 29th August, 2024. The contention of Mr. Shah that the order was continued from time to time is misconceived, as subsequent order notes “ad- interim relief, if any, to be continued till the next date”. As we do not find any contumacious conduct on part of the private Respondents, we are not inclined to exercise contempt jurisdiction. The Petition stands disposed of. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Arya Chavan 2 of 2