Employees Two Division Bench judgment w
delay condoned; appeals registered; notice issued against respondents 1 & 2; applicants must furnish undertaking within four weeks; no statutory benefit for delay period if successful.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
936 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8073 OF 2018
IN FAST/7305/2018
WITH
CA/8074/2018 IN FAST/7425/2018 WITH CA/8075/2018
IN FAST/7415/2018 WITH CA/8077/2018 IN
FAST/7419/2018 WITH CA/8078/2018 IN
FAST/7427/2018 WITH CA/8079/2018 IN
FAST/7422/2018
SURYAKANT MADHUKAR GUTTE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Kendre N.D.
Mrs. SS Raut, AGP for Respondents:1 & 2.
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 29th August,2018.
PER COURT :
1.Heard Shri Kendre, learned Counsel
appearing for applicants and learned AGP Shri
Phule, appearing for Respondent-State.
.Respondent No.3 though is duly served,
no one has entered appearance on his behalf.
2.Delay of 1341 days has occurred in
filing the present appeals by the applicants.
3.Learned Counsel for the applicants
2
submitted that financial crunch was the main
reason that the applicants could not prefer the
appeals seeking enhancement in the amount of
compensation before this Court. The learned
counsel submitted that the applicants are ready
to file an undertaking that they will not claim
any interest on statutory benefit of the period
of delay in the event of their success in the
appeals. The learned counsel further submitted
that on such condition, the applicants may be
given an opportunity to prosecute their appeals
on merits. The learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
K.Subbarayudu and Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) - (2017) 12 SCC 840 .
4.Learned AGP has resisted the request so
made. He submitted that financial crunch cannot
be a ground for condoning the delay. The learned
AGP further submitted that in absence of any
cogent and sufficient reasons, the huge delay of
1342 days cannot be condoned. The learned AGP
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
3
Court in the case of Basavraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition officer – (2013) 14 SCC
81.
5.I have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties. It is true
that financial crunch may not be the ground for
condoning the delay. However, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Subbarudu (cited supra), the said reason can
also not be outrightly rejected in every case.
Further,theapplicantsthemselveshave
undertaken not to claim any interest or statutory
benefit of the period of delay in the event of
their success in the appeals. In the
circumstances, I am inclined to allow the present
applications. Hence, the following order, -
ORDER
i.The delay caused in filing the appeals
is condoned.
ii.Appeals be registered in accordance with
law. After registration of the appeals, issue
4
notices to the respondents.
iii.LearnedAGPwaiveservicefor
respondents Nos. 1 & 2.
iv.It is clarified that, as undertaken by
the applicants, they shall not be entitled for
any statutory benefit or interest for the period
of delay in the event of their success in the
appeals on the amount of enhanced compensation.
v.Theapplicantstofurnishthe
undertaking within four weeks.
vi.The Civil Applications stand disposed
of.
Vii)Copy of the present order be placed
along with the papers of appeal.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
bdv/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether financial constraints can be accepted as a reason for condoning a delay of 1341 days in filing appeals.
Whether applicants' undertaking to waive interest on delayed period is a sufficient basis to condone delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Subbarayudu and Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)Referred¶23
K.Subbarayudu and Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) - (2017) 12 SCC 840 · Who else cites this
Basavraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition officerReferred¶29
Basavraj and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition officer – (2013) 14 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Suryakant Madhukar Gutte and Ors
The State of Maharashtra
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court