High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion vs Nilesh Ojha

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ., M. S. Sonak, Ravindra V. Ghuge, A. S. Gadkari, B. P. Colabawalla, JJ.
High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its own motion - Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Nilesh Ojha & Ors. - Respondents
Cri. Suo Motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2025, Interim Application No. 4079 of 2025, Interim Application No. 4078 of 2025, Interim Application No. 4077 of 2025, Interim Application No. 4076 of 2025, Interim Application No. 4075 of 2025, Interim Application No. 4070 of 2025, Interim Application No. 3909 of 2025, Interim Application No. 3861 of 2025, Interim Application No. 3863 of 2025, Interim Application No. 3862 of 2025, Interim Application No. 2005 of 2025, Interim Application No. 3209 of 2025, Cri. Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 4 of 2025
Decided On : 20-11-2025

Important Points

The court has the inherent power to ensure compliance with its orders and can grant adjournments in the interest of justice while balancing expediency and the rights of the parties involved.

Subject

Contempt of Court - Adjournment Requests

Headnote

(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court's inherent power to ensure compliance with its orders - The court emphasizes the necessity of upholding legal orders and proceedings. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Adjournment requests - The court assesses the appropriateness of adjournments based on the progress of the case and the necessity of expediency. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The court is considering several contempt petitions arising from orders issued on 17th September 2025 and 16th October 2025. The respondent's counsel requested a four-week adjournment.

Findings of Court:
The court acceded to the adjournment request, indicating a willingness to allow the matter to be heard on a future date.

Issues: The main issues involve the legitimacy of the contempt petitions and the timing of legal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed its authority to adjourn cases while balancing the need for prompt legal proceedings with requests from parties involved.

Result: Matters adjourned to 15th January 2026.

Advocates Appeared:
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae a/w Mr. Gaurav Srivastav, Mr.Aditya Mhase & Ms. Rasika Satone, Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae a/w Mr.Anwar Faizallbhoy & Ms.Nishta Gupta,
For the Respondent:Mr.Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Mr. Prasad L. Gajbhiye, Advocate, Dr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate, Mr Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Naushad Enginerr, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Ravikumar Kamble i/by S. Mahomedbhai & Co., Advocates, Mr.Suresh Sabrad a/w Mr Vikram N. Walawalkar a/w Ms.Eshwaree Kudalkar, Advocates, Mr.Naresh Thacker a/w Mr. Chanakya Keswani & Mr. Tanmay Bhave i/b Economic Laws Practice, Mr. Harshad Gada i/b Desai Desai Carrimjee & Mulla, Advocates

Table of Content
1. challenge to orders dated 17th september and 16th october 2025. (Para 1)
2. request for four weeks’ adjournment. (Para 2)
3. rescheduling of court matters. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, the learned counsel appears for the respondent-contemnor. The learned counsel has apprised this Court that a petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the orders dated 17th September 2025 and 16th October 2025

2. Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, the learned counsel seeks four weeks’ adjournment.

3. Post the matters on Thursday, that is, 15th January 2026 at 4:00 p.m.