VAIJNATH DHONDIBA LONDHE vs BALASAHEB RAMRAO KUNDGIR AND ANOTHERS — CP/664/2015
Case under Constitution of India. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030421672015
Next Hearing
18th November 2015
Filing Number
CP/33599/2015
Filing Date
16-11-2015
Registration No
CP/664/2015
Registration Date
17-11-2015
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
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VAIJNATH DHONDIBA LONDHE
Adv. WARAD SUNIL V.
Respondent(s)
BALASAHEB RAMRAO KUNDGIR AND ANOTHERS
Adv. GP FOR R.2,R/1 SERVED. 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABASAHEB D. SHINDE
FOR ADMISSION - FRESH [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS]
PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
DUE ADMISSION (CP)
PRODUCTION [ FRESH ]
DUE ADMISSION (CP)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-02-2016 | FOR ADMISSION - FRESH [CIVIL SIDE MATTERS] |
| 15-12-2015 | PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 09-02-2016 | DUE ADMISSION (CP) |
| 18-11-2015 | PRODUCTION [ FRESH ] |
| 11-01-2016 | DUE ADMISSION (CP) |
Orders
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE P.R. BORA
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the contempt petition filed by Vaijnath Dhondiba Londhe against Balasaheb Ramrao Kundgir. The court found the petition had become moot as the underlying contempt direction must have been already decided and the petitioner would have retired by the time of hearing, leaving no live issues to adjudicate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) disposed of the contempt petition filed by Vaijnath Dhondiba Londhe against Balasaheb Ramrao Kundgir. The court found the petition had become moot as the underlying contempt direction must have been already decided and the petitioner would have retired by the time of hearing, leaving no live issues to adjudicate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts