Dismissed

Sunil Ambadas Ghige v. Smt Managala Sanjay Dhiwar and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2017WP/13499/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a recovery order under Section 31 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court rejected a compromise based on non-existent adjustment of the final claim and dismissed the petition, directing recovery proceedings to continue.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Recovery certificate to be acted upon by Tahsildar for recovery of compensation as land revenue.

Sunil Ambadas Ghige Vs Smt Managala Sanjay Dhiwar… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP13499_16.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.13499 OF 2016

¶5

Sunil Ambadas Ghige … Petitioner Vs. Mangala Sanjay Dhiwar and others … Respondents

¶6

None for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : JULY 12, 2017

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel for respondents.

¶11

Perused the earlier orders. The matter was heard on 19.06.2017 and was kept 'for dismissal' on 03.07.2017. On 03.07.2017, learned Counsel appearing for the parties submitted that parties are filing consent terms and accordingly matter was adjourned to 05.07.2017. Respondents had earlier filed Claim Petition under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'Act'). By order dated 28.03.2006, compensation of Rs.3,11,970/- with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 06.12.2001 till its realization was granted. Further penalty of Rs.25,000/- was also imposed.

¶12

As the petitioner did not pay the amount, respondents filed Recovery Application under Section 31 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Judge, Labour Court, Nashik allowed the Recovery Application and issued recovery certificate to the Collector, Nashik for recovering compensation amount of Rs.3,11,970/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from

¶13

1/3

¶14

WP13499_16.sxw

¶15

06.12.2001 till its realization as also penalty of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. It is against this order, present Petition is instituted.

¶16

On 05.07.2017, consent terms between the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3 were sought to be tendered in this Court. By the consent terms, parties agreed to settle the dispute subject to the petitioner paying amount of Rs.90,000/- by cheque and cash amount of Rs.10,000/-. Respondents also agreed to accept this amount as full and final settlement of claim. After perusing the consent terms, I was satisfied that the claim of the respondents is not adjusted by lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties. I, therefore, called upon the respondents as to why they agreed for compromise. The only answer that was given was that it will not be possible for the respondents to recover the amount in excess of Rs.1,00,000/-. I did not accept this explanation as recovery certificate is already issued on 10.11.2016. That apart, on account of death of Sanjay Gangadhar Dhivar in the course of employment, claim Petition was filed under the Act and the same was allowed on 28.03.2006. The petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,11,970/- with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 06.12.2001 till its realization. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner and thus had attained finality. In view thereof, I declined to accept the compromise terms and dispose of the Petition in accordance with the consent terms and kept the matter today under the caption 'for dismissal'. However, none appears for the petitioner.

¶17

Having regard to the fact that petitioner did not challenge the order dated 28.03.2006 by which compensation @ Rs.3,11,970/- was awarded together with interest @ 10% p.a. from 06.12.2001 till its realization on account of death of Sanjay Gangadhar Dhivar , I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any error. The order dated

¶18

2/3

¶19

WP13499_16.sxw

¶20

28.03.2006 had attained finality. In view thereof, no case is made out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more so when Tahsildar, Yeola had already issued recovery certificate on 10.11.2016. Hence, Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Tahsildar will now proceed in pursuance of certificate dated 10.11.2016 for recovery of amount of compensation as land revenue. All the parties, including the Tahsilar, Yeola, to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. Tahsildar, Yeola shall submit compliance report to this Court on or before 31.08.2017. Order accordingly.

¶21

Minal Parab

¶22

3/3

Sunil Ambadas Ghige v. Smt Managala Sanjay Dhiwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Ambadas Ghige v. Smt Managala Sanjay Dhiwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aruna J Agarwal and 2 Others Vs M/S Samta Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Dr. Suswir Jaidao Dahiwale Vs the Secretary, Vidya Prasarak Mandals Arts, Science and Commerce College, Kinhavali and Ors.

Shri Govind Manikrao Sarolkar Vs Samaj Seva Mitra Mandal Karmala and Ors.

Sanjay Hridaynarayan Tiwari Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Nivritti Gopala Patil Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 2 Others

Mohammed Sami Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.