Allowed

Dhananjay Mahadevappa Mitkari v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Latur and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2017CA/16215/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed civil applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The court granted the relief subject to an undertaking by applicants to waive statutory benefits for the delayed period if compensation is enhanced.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; delay condoned with condition to waive statutory benefits for delayed period if compensation enhanced.

Dhananjay Mahadevappa Mitkari Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Latur and Anr. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CA 16212+group.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

1085 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16212 OF 2016

IN FAST/33381/2016

WITH

FAST 33381/2016

SAVLEBEE MAINUDDIN SHAIKH AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶9

WITH CA/16213/2016 IN FAST/33857/2016

WITH

FAST/33857/2016

WITH

CA/16214/2016 IN FAST/33863/2016

¶14

WITH

¶15

FAST/33863/2016

¶16

CA/16215/2016 IN FAST/33871/2016

WITH

FAST/33871/2016

WITH

CA/16216/2016 IN FAST/33860/2016 WITH

¶21

FAST/33860/2016 WITH

¶22

CA/16217/2016 IN FAST/33865/2016 WITH FAST/33865/2016 WITH

¶23

CA/16218/2016 IN FAST/33853/2016 WITH

¶24

FAST/33853/2016

¶25

Advocate for Applicant : Mr Patil Mahesh S. AGP for Respondents: Mr S R Yadav

¶26

CA 16212+group.odt

¶27

¶28

CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J. Dated: January 13, 2017

¶29

PER COURT :

¶30

These are the applications for condonation of delay caused in filing appeals.

¶31

Mr. Patil, the learned counsel submits that, the appeals filed by the State against same judgment and award are dismissed. In fact, the claimants were of the view that in case the appeals of the state are admitted, the claimants would file cross objections in the said appeals. As such appeals were not filed. The State has already filed appeals in the year 2008. However, at the admission stage the appeals of the State have been dismissed. To show the bonafides the claimants have filed undertaking to this Court stating that in case, this Court awards enhanced amount of compensation, then, the claimants would waive statutory benefits for the delayed period.

¶32

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, there is no cause muchless sufficient cause to condone the delay. The delay is inordinate one.

¶33

I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. The respondents have not controverted the averments made in applications by filing affidavit in reply. Be that as it may, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. If the appeals filed by State would have been admitted, the present applicants/appellants could have got opportunity to file cross objections. The applicants have

¶34

3 CA 16212+group.odt

¶35

filed undertaking before this Court mentioning that, in case this Court comes to the conclusion to enhance the compensation amount, then, the applicants would not claim statutory benefits for the delayed period.

¶36

In the light of the above, the Civil Applications are allowed. The delay is condoned with a rider that in case, this Court enhances the compensation amount, then the applicants would not be entitled for the statutory benefits from the date of judgment of the Reference Court till this date. Civil applications are disposed of.

¶37

In first appeals, issue notice to the respondents.

¶38

Learned AGP waives notice for Respondent State.

¶39

Fix the matters for admission on 19.1.2017.

¶40

( V.K. JADHAV, J. )

¶41

aaa/-

Dhananjay Mahadevappa Mitkari v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Latur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Mahadevappa Mitkari v. the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Latur and Anr.

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

Navnath Yadav Gagare Vs Pornima Navnath Gagare

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rukhsana Begum Sk Iliyas and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaikh Foujiya Shaikh Ahmed and Ors.

Manohar Jaiwant Patil and Ors. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lalla Misrilal Vishwakarma and Ors.

Dattatraya Ramshetty Biradar Since Deceased Thr His Lrs Ramrao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra