Disposed

Mrs. Krupa Hallikar v. the Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2013MCA/515/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Goa permitted the applicant to withdraw Rs. 5 lacs deposited pending an appeal before the Supreme Court, provided she files a personal undertaking to deposit the amount if the respondent succeeds in the SLP.

What did the court decide?

Permitted withdrawal of Rs. 5 lacs with accrued interest subject to a personal undertaking to restore the amount if the respondent succeeds in the SLP pending before the Apex Court.

Mrs. Krupa Hallikar Vs the Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 4 Ors. — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 515 OF 2013

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2013

¶5

MRS. KRUPA HALLIKAR Versus THE MAPUSA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER AND 4 ORS.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Shri Gaurish N. Agni, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri V. Palekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms. P. Bhandari, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

Coram:R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶10

Date:17th October, 2013

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The above Civil Application has been filed by the applicant for being permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only), which has been deposited in this Court by the respondent no.1-the Municipal Council.

¶13

The said amount was towards some portion of the back wages that were payable to the applicant in terms of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent no.1-Municipal Council being the Writ Petition No.76/2013 came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 7/05/2013. The respondent no.1, thereafter carried the matter in

¶14

¶15

Appeal by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.6/2013, which Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 12/08/2013. The respondent no.1, thereafter carried the matter to the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the SLP filed by the respondent no.1, has on 24/09/2013 issued notice to the respondent i.e. the applicant herein and made it returnable after 4 weeks. However, what is important from the point of view of the present application is that the Apex Court did not grant any interim stay as prayed by the respondent no.1 on the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5 lacs, though it clarified that remaining amount need not be deposited by the respondent no.1 i.e. the petitioner before the Apex Court till further orders. The order of the Apex Court therefore makes it clear that there is no impediment in so far as the withdrawal of the said amount is concerned.

¶16

Since the SLP is pending before the Apex Court, it would be just and proper to permit the applicant to withdraw the said amount of Rs.5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) which is lying in deposit of this Court with accrued interest, if any, on the applicant furnishing personal undertaking to this Court that he would bring back the amount that would be withdrawn, in the event the respondent no.1 succeeds in the SLP. The said undertaking to be filed within one week from date. The office will permit withdrawal after the said undertaking is filed in this Court.

¶17

¶18

In so far as the costs are concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 states that the said costs would be deposited within two weeks from date. On such deposit being made, the applicant would be allowed to withdraw the said costs and the undertaking which would be filed in respect of the withdrawal of Rs.5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) would also cover the costs of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). In terms of the directions as above, the Civil Application is disposed of.

¶19

R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶20

Mrs. Krupa Hallikar v. the Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Krupa Hallikar v. the Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officer and 4 Ors.

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

Mr. Ranaditya S. Banerjee Vs Mr.Somnath Sarkar

Mrs. Maria Celesta Lucia Cecilia Cota Viegas and 6 Ors., Vs Shri Hubert Correia and 7 Ors.

Mrs. Maria Celesta Lucia Cecilia Cota Viegas and 6 Ors., Vs Shri Hubert Correia and 7 Ors.

Rizwan Safik Saifi Vs the State and Anr.

Mr. Mohan Mukund Ghatwal and Anr., Vs Mr. Gurudas Arjun Ghatwal

Shri. Dashrath Shabi Shanu Chodankar and Anr. Vs Shri. Babu Babal Khole (Sin. Dec.) through and 5 Ors.