Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mangal Rajendra Kamthe – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar, Purandhar – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. The High Court of Bombay has declined to initiate proceedings for contempt by the impugned order dated 17th November, 2025, on the ground of absence of any element of ‘civil contempt’. We see no reason to interfere therewith; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
4. A parting observation, however, seems to be necessary considering the contents of the order of which contempt was alleged. The High Court, by its order dated 8th September 2025, allowed the petitioner to withdraw his writ petition because a remedy of revision under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 was available against the order under challenge, which he did not pursue. However, to facilitate the revisional forum to be approached by the petitioner, the High Court directed that no coercive steps were to be taken and stayed the implementation of the order under challenge till 30th September, 2025.
5. Orders of similar nature have engaged our attention where the high courts, while declining to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative
Writ Petition – Once High Court declines to entertain writ petition in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is available....
An order dropping contempt proceedings is not an order punishing the respondents for contempt and therefore does not fall within the scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which pro....
writ petition of the present nature ought not to be entertained. It may be true that the orders passed in favor of the Petitioners are not being implemented by the authorities, but, at the same time,....
(1) An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to long passage of time – If a High Court concludes after hearing all concerned p....
The High Court emphasized that contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt, adhering to statutory limitations while asserting selective exercise of inherent powers onl....
The court cannot entertain petitions for interim relief under Article 226 when an alternative remedy is pursued without obtaining interim orders.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
Miscellaneous applications cannot be entertained in disposed proceedings unless for clerical errors or rare cases where executory orders become impossible to implement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
