Rohidas Rangnath Pole vs 1 The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium, Prole — CA/4417/2026
Case under Contempt of Court Act Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM030144812026
e-Filing Number
09-04-2026
Filing Number
CA/10854/2026
Filing Date
10-04-2026
Registration No
CA/4417/2026
Registration Date
15-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rohidas Rangnath Pole
Adv. SHRIRANG SHASHISHEKHAR DANDE
2 Bhimrao So Rangnath Pole
Adv. DANDE SHRIRANG SHASHISHEKHAR
3 Oarnesgwar so Ramchandra Pole
Adv. DANDE SHRIRANG SHASHISHEKHAR
4 baba so Nath Pole
Adv. DANDE SHRIRANG SHASHISHEKHAR
Respondent(s)
1 The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium, Prole
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER
DUE ORDERS- CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | DUE ORDERS- CIVIL |
| 17-04-2026 |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of the contempt petition filed by Rohidas Rangnath Pole against the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation. The court discharged the bailable warrant issued against the Executive Engineer based on the respondent corporation's statement that the court's previous order had been implemented, and the petitioner's claim that deposited amounts were not received remained unresolved. The contempt petition was adjourned to 06.07.2026 for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of the contempt petition filed by Rohidas Rangnath Pole against the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation. The court discharged the bailable warrant issued against the Executive Engineer based on the respondent corporation's statement that the court's previous order had been implemented, and the petitioner's claim that deposited amounts were not received remained unresolved. The contempt petition was adjourned to 06.07.2026 for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts