Disposed

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. v. Collector, Miraj and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014WP/7873/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging auction proceedings after the complainant agreed to withdraw his complaint upon receiving a partial refund of the deposit money.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.8,53,000 to the fourth respondent; cancellation of execution of complaint No.100 of 2008; refund of balance to petitioners; disposal of writ petition and auction proceedings.

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

wp7873

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7873 OF 2014

¶5

Ms Jaymala S. Kharade & Ors.
vs.
Collector, Miraj Division,
Miraj and others

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Kedar Jaysing Patil a/w Trupti Bharadi for the
petitioners

¶8

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr.Suresh Rajaram Devkar respondent No.4 in person

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1The learned AGP on instructions of Shri
A.V.Kulkarni, Circle Officer, Miraj states that the
auction purchaser (third respondent) has taken back
the amount deposited by him and therefore, the
auction has not taken place. The learned AGP states
that the Tahsildar by a letter dated 2nd December
2014 authorised Shri A.V.Kulkarni to remain present
and to instruct the learned AGP. We accept the
statements made by the learned AGP on instructions
of the said Shri A.V.Kulkarni.

¶11

2The fourth respondent is personally present in
the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners
states that the petitioner No.1 who is present in
the Court identifies the fourth respondent. The
fourth respondent has tendered on record an

¶12

2 wp7873

¶13

application signed by him in which he has stated
that if he is permitted to withdraw a sum of
Rs.8,53,000/ deposited by the petitioners in this
Court, he will forthwith withdraw his complaint of
the year 2008 filed with the Consumer Redressal
Forum. He has stated that subject to the receipt of
the said amount, he has no objection if the auction
is cancelled. The fourth respondent has produced his
photo identity card. He is directed to place on
record a copy of the same.

¶14

3The learned counsel for the petitioners has no
objection for permitting the fourth respondent to
withdraw a sum of Rs.8,53,000/ out of the amount
deposited by the petitioners in this Court. The
report of the registry is that the cheque deposited
by the petitioners in this Court in the sum of
Rs.8,78,000/ has been honoured and the proceeds
have been deposited in a Bank.

¶15

4We accept the statements made by the
petitioners as well as by the fourth respondent
along with the statements made by Shri A.V.Kulkarni,
Circle Officer.

¶16

5Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing
the following order:

¶17

(I)Out of the amount deposited by the
petitioners, a sum of Rs.8,53,000/ be paid
over to the fourth respondent Shri Suresh
Rajaram Devkar;

¶18

3 wp7873

¶19

(II) On receipt of the said amount by the fourth respondent, we direct that no further steps shall be taken for the execution of the order passed in complaint No.100 of 2008 filed by the fourth respondent;

¶20

(III) The registry after payment of Rs.8,53,000/ to the fourth respondent shall refund the balance amount together with interest, if any, accrued thereon to the petitioner;

¶21

(IV) In view of the above statements, the auction proceedings subject matter of challenge in this petition do not survive and the same are disposed of;

¶22

(V) The fourth respondent states that the Fixed Deposit Receipts in his possession will be handed over to the petitioners on receipt of the sum of Rs.8,53,000/. We accept the said statement;

¶23

(VI) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. v. Collector, Miraj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Jaymala Shahajirao Kharade and Ors. v. Collector, Miraj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shakeel Sultan and Ors. Vs Nandgaon Municipal Council, through Chief Officer and Ors.

M/S. Vertex Spinning Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

The Collector of Thane and Ors. Vs Sangharsh Kriti Seva Samiti and Ors.

Kiran Piraji Nangare Vs Paras Bhomraj Oswal and Ors.

Shri. Madhukar Vitthal Jakkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nrc Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.