MARUTI LAXMAN SARANE AND ANOTHER vs U P S MADAN AND OTHERS — CP/2/2019
Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030315282018
Filing Number
CP/24926/2018
Filing Date
20-Aug-2018
Registration No
CP/2/2019
Registration Date
03-Jan-2019
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
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MARUTI LAXMAN SARANE AND ANOTHER
Adv. Kendre Namdev D
Respondent(s)
-
1.U P S MADAN AND OTHERS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the contempt petition filed by Maruti Laxman Sarane and another. The court inferred that since a contempt order was passed in 2016 and the petitioners did not approach the court thereafter, they must have received the revised pension payment as directed in the original order. Finding no surviving issues, the petition was disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2020
Petitions For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]
According To Sitting List
-
05-Dec-2019
Petitions For Admission - After Notice [Civil Side Matters]
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor
-
07-Nov-2019
Regular Admission (Civil)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil S. Kilor
-
04-Jan-2019
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. GavhaneView PDF
-
04-Jan-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Aug-2018
Case filed
Registration No. CP/2/2019
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the contempt petition filed by Maruti Laxman Sarane and another. The court inferred that since a contempt order was passed in 2016 and the petitioners did not approach the court thereafter, they must have received the revised pension payment as directed in the original order. Finding no surviving issues, the petition was disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts