Dismissed

Mr. Atmaram v. Kotare v M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2016CAW/215/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of six civil applications seeking clarification on a compensation rate. The court held that previous rates were ad interim and clarified that the respondent must now pay Rs.8,500 per month until suitable revision, deeming no further clarification necessary.

What did the court decide?

The civil applications were dismissed with no further clarifications deemed necessary.

Mr. Atmaram v. Kotare Vs M/S. Vikaylal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skc

¶2

P1-caw-211-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 211 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2213 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9141 OF 2012

¶5

Mr. Vijay S. Gaikar .. Applicant In the matter between : Mr. Vijay S. Gaikar .. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2214 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2215 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 214 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2216 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2217 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2218 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2219 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 218 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2220 OF 2015

1/3

skc

P1-caw-211-16

Mr. Yuvraj D. Patil for Applicants / Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. M. M. Vashi – Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Sharma for Respondent No. 4.

¶12

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 10 OCTOBER 2016

¶13

P.C :

¶14

1] Not on board. Upon production, taken on board.

¶15

2] By these civil applications, the applicants seek clarification in the context of certain observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order dated 8 December 2015, as modified by order dated 21 December 2015.

¶16

3] According to the applicants, the orders contemplate payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month until, the possession of the alternate premises is actually handed over to the applicants.

¶17

4] On the contrary, Mr. Vashi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month was to be paid for the period between 1 October 2014 and 8 December 2015, which was in fact computed as Rs.93,500/-. On basis of instructions, Mr. Vashi has submitted that this amount of

2/3

skc

P1-caw-211-16

Rs.93,500/- has already been paid to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not too sure that such amount has in fact been paid. At this stage, at least, we have to proceed on basis of statement of Mr. Vashi that the amount has indeed been paid. If the amount is not paid, obviously the applicants will be entitled to maintain appropriate proceedings, including proceedings for contempt of court for failure to comply.

¶22

5] Upon a conjoint reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order, it appears to me that compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- was to be paid as a one time measure for the period indicated. However, for the future, the respondent no. 4 is required to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.8,500/- per month, which is to be suitably revised from time to time, so that the applicants are on par with the other erst while occupants.

¶23

6] Accordingly, no further clarifications are necessary. The civil applications are disposed of, with liberty, as aforesaid.

¶24

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶25

Chandka

¶26

3/3

Mr. Atmaram v. Kotare v M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Atmaram v. Kotare v M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandu Sampat Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Manoj Jaswantlal Kapadia Vs the Principal Secretary 2 and Ors.

Mr. Bhau (Mhallar) Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of State Transport and Anr.

Mr. Ganpat B. Asurkar Vs M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Bhaskar D. Mistry Vs M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Akhilesh a. Chaubey Vs M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.