Disposed

Javahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Hupari (Yelgud) v. Smt Savita Krushna Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2010CA/8344/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court considered applications for stay filed by a sugar factory against directions to pay claims. Noting the full deposit of amounts by the applicant, the court prohibited payment to claimants without security and directed hearings before passing orders on security.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to pay deposited amounts to claimants without furnishing security satisfactory to the Commissioner until appeal against security order is heard.

Javahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

C.A. NO. 8344 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 13519 OF 2010
C.A. NO. 8346 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 13528 OF 2010
C.A. NO. 8348 OF 2010 IN F.A. ST. NO. 13535 OF 2010

¶5

Office Notes,Office MemorandaCourt's or Judge's orders
of Coram,appearances, Court's
orders or directions andCORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J.
Registrar's ordersDATED : 14.07.2010

¶6

1.These are applications for
stay filed by the sugar factory. It is
stated by the learned advocate for the
applicant Shri A.R. Joshi that the
amounts are deposited with the
CommissionerforWorkmen’s

¶7

Compensation. He wants stay to the
payment. He has also taken me through
the judgment of the Trial Court. It is
clear that the Trial Court has mainly
relied upon statement of driver of the
truck which met with the accident. It
was office of the sugar factory which
has sent the truck for bringing
labourers and it was also necessary to
transport grains and other material for
construction of huts and therefore the
truck was sent. In fact, first

¶8

¶9

information was given by the driver of
the truck. In the circumstances since
the entire amount is deposited, there
cannot be further execution. However,
since the appeals are filed, it is
necessary to take necessary precaution
for recovery of the amounts, in case,
the appeals are allowed.

¶10

2.In the circumstances it is
directed that the amount deposited
should not be paid to the claimants
without claimants furnishing security
to the satisfaction of the Commissioner
forWorkmen’sCompensation.The
advocate for the appellants in the
Court of Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation be heard before passing
order of security.

¶11

3.The Civil Applications stand
disposed of.

¶12

[P.R. BORKAR, J.]

¶13

snk/2010/JUL10/ca8344.10

Javahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Hupari (Yelgud) v. Smt Savita Krushna Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Hupari (Yelgud) v. Smt Savita Krushna Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayashri Chintaman Abhyenkar. Vs Railway North Colony Eduction Society,Bhusawal.

Mohammad Khan @ Babamiya Noorkhan. Vs Haji Shaikh Lal Shaikh Ahemad and Others.

Ramrao Kishanrao Badge and Ors. Vs Kishanrao Nivruttibadge Died and Ors.

Sudhakar Purushottam Patil and Another Vs Purushottam Waman Patil and Another

Punjabrao Gunjaji Ghalappa Deceased Lrs and Ors. Vs Vithalrao Ganpati Rautrao Deceased Lrs and Ors.

Shevantabai R Bhaskar Vs State of Mah.