Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 129]

Bombay High Court

Ganesh Suryakant Dahale vs Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, The ... on 30 November, 2018

Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Mangesh S. Patil

                                                                         304.18cp
                                        (1)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                CONTEMPT PETITION NO.304 OF 2018
                               IN
             FAMILY COURT PETITION NO.A-192 OF 2017

 Ganesh s/o Suryakant Dahale                            ..PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava & ors                         ..RESPONDENTS


 Mr F.R. Tandale, Advocate for petitioner;


                               CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
                                             AND
                                       MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.

                               DATE : 30th NOVEMBER, 2018


 ORAL ORDER             :

It may not be necessary for us to refer all facts. Suffice to say that though learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 3rd July, 2018 in Contempt Petition No. 304 of 2018 directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs.15,000/-, the appeal challenging the said order was filed in this Court.

2. The Division Bench of this Court to which ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 12:25:45 ::: 304.18cp (2) one of us was party (Prasanna B. Varale, J.) by order dated 30th July, 2018 recording the submission made before this Court that the appellant is facing difficulties and was unable to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/-, directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs.7500/- to show bona fides within stipulated period.

3. Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2018 is decided by us on 6th August, 2018 recording our detailed reasons. The appeal was dismissed. This fact remains that contemnor/appellant deposited only part of the amount as directed by learned single Judge of this Court and part of the amount is yet not deposited by the appellant. Office to take note of these facts.




 ( MANGESH S. PATIL )                            (PRASANNA B. VARALE)
        JUDGE                                           JUDGE




 Tupe




::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2018                        ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 12:25:45 :::