Quashed

M/S. Nagpur Distillers, through Its Managing Partner v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Urban Devp. Mantralaya and 3 Others

Bombay HC22 Jun 2016WP/3859/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, adopted the reasoning in a connected judgment and quashed demand notes issued to the petitioner regarding specific plots. The court ordered a conditional deposit of Rs. 10,000 and permitted the renewal lease proposal to proceed in the interim while allowing the respondent to contest its rights later.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside Demand Note dated 16.04.2014, Intimation dated 20.01.2015, and Demand Note dated 16.04.2014; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 10,000.

M/S. Nagpur Distillers, through Its Managing Partner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

2206wp3859.15

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3859 OF 2015

¶5

(M/s. Nagpur Distillers vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. Department of Urban Development & Ors.)

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. JUNE 22, 2016.

¶8

Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. P.D. Rane, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate with Shri A.H. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶9

It is not in dispute that the controversy is covered by the judgment dated 24^th February 2016 in Writ Petition No. 4709 of 2015 ( Dr. Sudhir Shankarrao Babhulkar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr. Department of Urban Development & Ors. ). Copy of that judgment is produced before us. One of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is a party to that judgment.

¶10

Hence, adopting the reasons recorded therein and subject to the petitioner’s depositing with Respondent No. 2, an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) within a period of two weeks from today, we quash and set aside the communication i.e. Demand Note dated 16.04.2014, Intimation dated 20.01.2015 in relation to Plot No. 300, similar intimation of even date in relation to Plot

¶11

¶12

2206wp3859.15

¶13

No. 200 and another Demand Note dated 16.04.2014, i.e. Annexures ‘D’ and ‘E’ respectively with the petition. Respondent No. 2 shall receive the amount of Rs.10,000/without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the matter. It shall appropriate it towards its demands as per result of the hearing to be extended to the petitioner.

¶14

However, in the meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 can process further the proposal of the petitioner for renewal of lease.

¶15

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGE JUDGE

¶17

*GS.

M/S. Nagpur Distillers, through Its Managing Partner v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Urban Devp. Mantralaya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Nagpur Distillers, through Its Managing Partner v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Department of Urban Devp. Mantralaya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad S/O Namdeoappa Paraswar Vs Shri. Nandkumar Principal Secretary, Dept of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Vishal Rice Mill, through Its Proprietor Purushottam M. Dengani, Gadchiroli Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

M/S Linksons Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., through Its Director, Gaurav Y. Sangla and 2 Vs the Authorised Officer, Pusad Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd., Pusad

Jagdish S/O Manikrao Khairkar Vs the Executive Director, Region Iii, Maha. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., and 2 Others

Shri P.G. Sakhre and 5 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education (Primary), Thr. Its Principal Secretary and 2

Sau. Mandakini Bhaskarrao Jeevankar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Deptt., Mumbai and Others