Disposed

Mukteshwar Upsa Jal Sinchan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad Though Its Secretary v. v Wagh v the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distri Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2017CA/4160/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Writ Petition and Civil Applications arising from a rejection of an application to settle arrears under Abhay Yojana. The Court accepted the parties' proposal to settle the dispute under a new 'New Prakash Yojana' scheme by depositing the entire amount, directing the Corporation not to disconnect electricity supply until the payment deadline.

What did the court decide?

Both applications and petition disposed upon agreement of parties to settle dispute under New Prakash Yojana with liberty to deposit balance amount by April 30, 2017.

Mukteshwar Upsa Jal Sinchan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

901_WP725014.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7250 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8967 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4160 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7250 OF 2014

¶4

Mukteshwar Upsa Jal-Sinchan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Through its Secretary Vijay Vitthal Wagh

¶5

..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And Another

¶8

..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.V. Shelke, Advocate for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J. DATED : 21st APRIL, 2017

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24^th July, 2014 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijapur by which the petitioner’s application to settle arrears of dues payable to respondent No.1 by availing of benefit of Abhay Yojana formulated by respondent No.1 was

¶13

901_WP725014.odt

¶14

rejected. This Court by an order dated 18^th February, 2015 granted stay of the impugned order dated 24^th July, 2014 upon the petitioner’s depositing amount of Rs.10 lakh in this Court and the respondents were given liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶15

Pending admission of the petition, this civil application is taken out by the petitioner stating that under a new scheme New Prakash Yojana formulated by respondent No.1 the entire dispute would be settled if it makes payment of Rs.14,03,442/- to the respondent No.1 before 30^th April, 2017.

¶16

Mr. Kazi, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that amount of Rs.10 lakh which has been deposited can be withdrawn by the respondents alongwith interest accrued thereon and the petitioner undertakes to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,03,442/- to the Respondent No.1 before 30^th April, 2017. Thus making the entire payment of Rs.14,03,442/- before the cut off date.

¶17

Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for respondents on instructions states that proposal placed by Mr. Kazi is acceptable to the respondentCorporation. On instructions he further states that if the above payments

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

901_WP725014.odt

¶20

are made before the specified date the dispute would stand settled under the new scheme and electricity supply would not be disconnected. In any case, the respondent will not disconnect the electricity supply till 30^th April, 2017 i.e. the time to pay Rs.4,03,442/- to the respondent No.1 – Corporation under the new scheme.

¶21

In view of the above, both the civil applications as well as the petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶22

SSD

¶23

3 / 3

Mukteshwar Upsa Jal Sinchan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad Though Its Secretary v. v Wagh v the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distri Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukteshwar Upsa Jal Sinchan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad Though Its Secretary v. v Wagh v the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distri Co. Ltd. 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

Ashoklal Chunilal Chorbele and Others Vs Sachin Subhashlal Gandhi and Others

Mudrika Ranjana Sanjay Abuj Vs Sanjay Uttaramrao Abuj

Web Galaxy through Its Proprietor Pratap Shankarrao Supekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dagdu Chandrrao Suryawanshi Vs Mahamod Nurulla Chaudhari and Others

Sangita Rajesh More Vs Rajesh Panditrao More

Ashoklal Chunilal Chorbele and Others Vs Sachin Subhashlal Gandhi and Others