Partly allowed

The Executive Engineer, Construction and Repairs Division, M.S.E.B. , Osmanabad v. Suresh Nagappa Ambarkhane and Others

Bombay HC24 Sept 2018CA/4271/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad rejected an application seeking withdrawal of the remaining 2/3rd of compensation. The court noted previous orders limiting withdrawal to 1/3rd and rejected prior appeals on merits. However, a separate interim stay application was disposed of by making the stay absolute due to full deposit of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Present application rejected. Interim stay application disposed of by making the interim stay granted on 6th May, 2014 absolute.

The Executive Engineer, Construction and… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 86 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6229 OF 2018
IN FA/2114/2014 WITH CA/4271/2014 IN FA/2114/2014

¶4

SURESH NAGAPPA AMBARKHANE AND ANR
VERSUS

¶5

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS
DIVISION, M.S.E.B. , OSMANABAD A

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. HB Nandgavale, Adv.
h/for Mr. Sakolkar Vijay G.
Mr. Dhananjay P. Deshpande, Adv. For Resp.No.1;
Mrs. SS Raut, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶8

...

¶9

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶10

PER COURT:-

¶11

1.Heard. The applicants, by this

¶12

application, have prayed for withdrawal of

¶13

remaining 2/3rd amount.

¶14

2.Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing

¶15

for the acquiring body has strongly opposed for
allowing withdrawal of the amount. The learned
counsel pointed out that the Division Bench, vide
order passed on 3rd December, 2014, had permitted
the applicants to withdraw only 1/3rd of the total

¶16

amount and the balance amount was directed to be
invested in Fixed Deposit Receipt. The learned
counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order
was challenged by the applicants by filing SLP

¶17

before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order passed on 17th
August, 2015, rejected the SLP so filed by the
applicants with liberty to the applicants to move

¶18

(2)

¶19

this Court for early hearing of the appeals. The
learned counsel further pointed out that thereafter
one civil application was preferred again seeking
withdrawal of the amount and the same was rejected
by this Court (Coram: V.K.Jadhav,J.) vide order
passed on 9th March, 2016. The learned counsel
submitted that instead of making an application for
early hearing of the appeal, the applicants are
repeatedly filing the applications for withdrawal
of the amount. The learned counsel, therefore,
prayed for rejecting the application.

¶20

3.In view of the orders referred to herein
above, there appears no merit in the present
application. The application, therefore, stands
rejected.

¶21

4.In view of the fact that the acquiring
body has deposited the entire amount of
compensation, the interim stay granted by this
Court on 6th May, 2014 is made absolute. CA for
stay stands disposed of.

¶22

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

¶23

bdv

The Executive Engineer, Construction and Repairs Division, M.S.E.B. , Osmanabad v. Suresh Nagappa Ambarkhane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer, Construction and Repairs Division, M.S.E.B. , Osmanabad v. Suresh Nagappa Ambarkhane and 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

Narayan Laxman Dhage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rama Umesh Gawali Vs Umesh Babasaheb Gawali

Nagorao Manikrao Sarowar and Others Vs Laxmanrao Eknathrao Manal and Others

Bhagwat Sahebrao Chede and Others Vs Shilabai Manikrao Kemdharne

Parmeshwar Changdeo Sabale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Silabai Kaduba Binniwale and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.., Thr Its Div. Manager, Aurangabad and Ors.