Shashikala Rajendra Pandey vs Shri Mahadev Upadhyay Vidyalay — CP/148/2026

Case under Mah. Pvt. School (C of S) Regulation Act Section 9. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010074772026

e-Filing Number

06-02-2026

Filing Number

CP/4279/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

CP/148/2026

Registration Date

04-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

Bench Type

Single

Category

CONTEMPT OF COURT ( 8 )

Sub-Category

CIVIL CONTEMPT ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 03-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Pvt. School (C of S) Regulation Act Section 9
Contempt of Courts Act Section 2(1)(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shashikala Rajendra Pandey

    Adv. Prakash N Wagh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shri Mahadev Upadhyay Vidyalay

  2. 2.The Principal

  3. 3.The Chairman

  4. 4.Deputy Director Of Education

  5. 5.Education Officer North Zone

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit BorkarView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's contempt petition alleging breach of a School Tribunal's order, holding that an efficacious alternative remedy exists for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal itself for redressal rather than invoke the High Court's contempt jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Article 215 of the Constitution. The Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all contentions before the Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amit Borkar

  4. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CP/148/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioner's contempt petition alleging breach of a School Tribunal's order, holding that an efficacious alternative remedy exists for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal itself for redressal rather than invoke the High Court's contempt jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Article 215 of the Constitution. The Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to agitate all contentions before the Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case