VISHWANATH MADUDAPPA DADGE vs T C BENJAMIN AND OTHERS Advocate - Barde Parag Vijay — CP/586/2016

Case under Mah.muncipalties Act 1965. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 08-Sep-2016

CNR: HCBM030306242016

Filing Number

CP/24494/2016

Filing Date

05-Aug-2016

Registration No

CP/586/2016

Registration Date

24-Aug-2016

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah.muncipalties Act 1965
Mah.civil Services(ser.con) Rule 1981
Contempt of Court Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VISHWANATH MADUDAPPA DADGE

    Adv. MD SAMIUDDIN M Y CHOUDHARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.T C BENJAMIN AND OTHERS Advocate - Barde Parag Vijay

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF

    The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the contempt petition after the petitioner's counsel confirmed that the contempt order had been complied with and all retiral benefits had been received. The court found the matter resolved and closed the petition accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2020

    Notification

    According To Sitting List

  4. 21-Oct-2016

    Await Notices -CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala , Hon'ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane

  5. 08-Sep-2016

    Hon'ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,hon'ble Shri Justice V.K. JadhavView PDF

  6. 08-Sep-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 05-Aug-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. CP/586/2016

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the contempt petition after the petitioner's counsel confirmed that the contempt order had been complied with and all retiral benefits had been received. The court found the matter resolved and closed the petition accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case