Disposed

Uttamrao S/O Bapurao Raut v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

Bombay HC29 Apr 2016CAF/806/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding alleged double deduction of development charges in execution proceedings, the High Court observed that mere error in interpreting a prior judgment is not a ground for quashing an order by speaking to minutes without following proper procedure.

What did the court decide?

The application is disposed of without going into the merits on the ground that speaking to minutes is not the remedy for alleged error in interpreting a prior judgment.

Uttamrao S/O Bapurao Raut Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

2904caf806.16

Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

C.A.F.NO. 806/2016 IN F.A.NO. 240/2002.

¶6

Uttamrao Bapurao Raut.

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 29, 2016.

¶12

Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned

¶13

Counsel for the applicant, Shri N.S. Rao, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri S.V. Purohit, learned Counsel for respondent no.3.

¶14

According to learned Counsel for the applicant, judgment delivered by this Court is very clear and trial Court is misconstruing it in execution proceedings and has deducted an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs again i.e. twice, on account of development charges.

¶15

3. According to Shri Purohit, learned counsel

¶16

for acquiring body, the trial Court is justified in

2904caf806.16

Order

undertaking the said exercise.

¶21

Learned A.G.P. submits that the issue is between the applicant and the acquiring body. However, according to him, the question of interpretation of judgment of this Court may be involved.

¶22

Wrong understanding or wrong

¶23

interpretation of any direction or judgment of this Court by the trial Court cannot form subject matter of speaking to minutes. We are saying this presuming that the trial Court is not correctly understanding the directions issued by this Court. However, this presumption is without prejudice to the contention of respondents that the Trial Court has correctly acted upon that judgment.

¶24

If according to the applicant the trial Court

¶25

is in error, speaking to minutes is not the remedy for that. Hence, without observing anything on merits, and with liberty to the applicant to take such other steps as are available to him in law, we dispose of the present application. No costs.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.

Uttamrao S/O Bapurao Raut v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttamrao S/O Bapurao Raut v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

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

M/S. Maghanmal Hiromal Sons. Vs the Range Forest Officer, Nagpur

Manohar Shama Rathod Vs Dy.Dir. of Higher Edn. Nagpur and 4 Ors.

Ganpat Vishwambhar Ambilwade.. Vs Bhartiya Sewa Sadan and Others..

Ramdas Rajaram Kale, and Another Vs Accountant General, Maha. (Accounts and Entitlement)-Ii, Nagpur and Another

Kwality Agro Vet Industries, Sivadhapuram, through Its Authorized Signatory Sudhir Govind Kapote Vs the State of Maha., through the Under Secretary, Animal Husbandary Dept., Mumbai and Others

Padmaja Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vijaywada, through Its Authorized Person Pravin S/O. Vasantrao Josh Vs the State of Maha., through the Under Secretary, Animal Husbandary Dept., Mumbai and Others