Partly allowed

Shri. Gyasilal Ghansuram Sharma v. Sau. Jayashri. Vasant Pawar and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2013CAC/169/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment modifies an order directing the applicant to deposit monthly compensation. Granting leniency due to financial hardship, the High Court permits arrears from June 2001 to May 2013 to be paid within a week and requires future compensation to be paid six months in advance.

What did the court decide?

Arrears of compensation for June 2001 to May 2013 to be deposited within one week; future compensation to be deposited six months in advance.

Shri. Gyasilal Ghansuram Sharma Vs Sau. Jayashri… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 169 OF 2013 IN

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 474 OF 2011

¶4

Gyasilal Ghasuram Sharma. ..Applicant. Versus Sau. Jayashri Vasant Pawar.. ..Respondent.

¶5

Mr. Rahul Motkari for the Applicant. Mr. M. S. Karnik for Respondent No. 1 and 2.

¶6

Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : June 11, 2013 .

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Heard. Civil application is filed for modification of the order dated 28^th September 2012 passed in above revision. On 10^th January 2012, the above revision application was admitted and ad-interim relief was granted. By the order dated 28^th September 2012, the ad-interim relief is confirmed subject to the Applicant's depositing monthly compensation @ Rs.400/- from the date of impugned judgment and decree. The applicant was required to deposit the arrears of compensation within the period of six weeks from the date of order. Further,

¶9

1 / 3

¶10

patilsr

¶11

the Applicant was required to deposit monthly compensation commencing from the month of October 2012, on or before 10^th day of each month.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that due some financial difficulties, the Applicant could not deposit the amount of compensation as directed by the order dated 28^th September 2013, however, now Applicant is ready to deposit the amount of arrears of compensation for the period June 2001 to May 2013, i.e., from the date of trial Court's decree upto last month, which comes to Rs.57,600/-. He submitted that within a week from today the Applicant will deposit the amount of arrears.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that commencing from June 2013, the Applicant will deposit six months' compensation in advance. He submitted that within two weeks from today, the Applicant will in advance deposit compensation for June 2013 to November 2013.

¶14

Though the order dated 28^th September 2012 is not complied with, the fact remains that the Respondent – landlord has not executed the decree and the Applicant is in

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

patilsr

¶17

possession of the suit premises. Taking into consideration all these aspects, coupled with the fact that it was not possible for the Applicant to deposit the amount of arrears, I am inclined to take lenient view and permit the amount of compensation to be deposited as stated above. Application is disposed of by passing following order.

¶18

-: O R D E R :-

¶19

(I) The Applicant is permitted to deposit amount of arrears of compensation @ Rs.400/- per month for the period June 2001 to May 2013 within one week from today.

¶20

(II) Commencing from June 2013, the Applicant is permitted to deposit six month's compensation in advance. Six months' compensation for June 2013 to November 2013 shall be deposited within two weeks from today.

¶21

(III) Order dated 28^th September 2012 stands modified accordingly.

¶22

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

patilsr

Shri. Gyasilal Ghansuram Sharma v. Sau. Jayashri. Vasant Pawar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Gyasilal Ghansuram Sharma v. Sau. Jayashri. Vasant Pawar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gorai (1) Sanghamitra Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Rajesh Prataprai Parekh

Samir Premji Dedhia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Panchavati Krida Mandal, through Chairman, Shri. Satish R. Chavan Vs Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem) and Competent Authority, Kurla and Ors.

Icici Bank Limited Vs Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Icici Bank Ltd.----Applicant Vs Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited Vs Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Cin No. U24231PN1981PLC024251