Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11396 (BOM)

REGISTRAR JUDICIAL HIGH COURT BENCH AT AURAGNABAD v. THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

CP/148/2010 · 2026-09-23

Special Leave Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 148 OF 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 148 OF 2010 IN WP/7312/2008 Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench At Aurangabad Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others __________________________________________________________ • Mr. N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for State • Adv. E. P. Sawant for Respondent Nos. 6 to 15 __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] 1) In this suo motu contempt, on 02.09.2010, the Court has passed the order that the contempt petition be placed for further hearing after disposal of the S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 22370 of 2010 and 22371 of 2010. 2) Learned advocate appearing for respondent nos. 6 and 15 has placed on record the order of the Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s). 22370-22371/2010 dated 02.11.2011, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disposed of the S.L.P. by issuing the directions for compliance of the allotment of the shops Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:43494 905 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 148 OF 2010 constructed by respondent no. 6 – Sangh. He further submits that the directions of the Apex Court are complied by the District Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society by making the allotment as per directions. 3) In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt petition and the same stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) JUDGE (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 2