Allowed

Phiroze Jehangir Vazifdar v. the Chief Secretary to the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Dec 2013WP/3113/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for possession, the High Court allowed withdrawal after parties reached a settlement wherein respondents agreed to hand over possession on an as is where is basis upon undertaking that no mesne profits or additional damages would be claimed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file undertaking within two weeks; writ petition allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of subject to terms of settlement.

Phiroze Jehangir Vazifdar Vs the Chief Secretary to the… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

WP 3113 of 2006

VAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDCITION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3113 OF 2006

¶6

Phiroze Jehangir Vazifdar ...Petitioner Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr.Vaibhav J. Mehta for Petitioner a/w. Ms. Deepti B. Mistry i/b. Divyakant Mehta for Petitioner Mr.D.A. Nalawade – Government Pleader with Mr. Milind More-AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 **********

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S.SONAK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4

¶13

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the Respondents to hand over the possession of the premises which is owned by him. During the pendency of the petition, the parties have arrived at settlement and filed their consent minutes of order.

1/3

WP 3113 of 2006

The Respondents have agreed to hand over the possession of the premises to the Petitioner on 'as is where is' basis, upon an undertaking being given by the Petitioner that he shall not claim any mesne profits or any other compensation or damages in addition to the existing rent from the Respondents and they shall give a further undertaking that the State Government shall not be held liable if in future any suit or litigation is filed by the Petitioner in respect of ownership / heirship of the said suit premises. It is further stated in the consent minutes of order that the Government Administration Department of Respondent No.1, in a meeting dated 8.7.2013 resolved to hand over the quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the Petitioner and the said decision has been conveyed by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 by its letter dated 18.10.2013 and the same has been conveyed by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner. The Respondents, under these circumstances, have agreed to give an undertaking that they shall hand over the quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the Petitioner's premises from the date on which the undertaking is filed by the Petitioner in this Court.

¶18

The undertaking given by the Petitioner that he shall not claim mesne profits or any other compensation or damages in addition to the existing rent in respect of suit premises from the Respondents is accepted. The undertaking given by the Respondents that they shall hand over the possession of the premises on 'as is where is' basis to the Petitioner from the date on which the undertaking is filed by the Petitioner in this Court is accepted.

2/3

WP 3113 of 2006

The Petitioner is directed to file an undertaking in this Court within two weeks. Copy of the undertaking be served on the learned Government Pleader. The decision of the Government has been conveyed by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner by its letter dated 18.10.2013 is accepted. The statement made by the Government Pleader, on instructions received from Mr. S.M. Kadam, Deputy Labour Commissioner, is accepted.

¶23

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

[ M.S.SONAK, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶26

V.A.Tikam

¶27

3/3

Phiroze Jehangir Vazifdar v. the Chief Secretary to the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phiroze Jehangir Vazifdar v. the Chief Secretary to the State of Maharashtra and 3 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

Ms. Manjula Jethanand Nichani Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Nieyaati Vinay Masurkar Vs Controller of Examination and Others

M/S. Mediheights Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Bassein Catholic Co.Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Dr. Vivek Digambarrao Dande Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.

Dr. Ashok v. Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.

Dr. Gajanan Gaurishankar Sose and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.