Dismissed

Maruti Manik Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2018RA/40/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application arising from dismissed first appeals regarding disputes involving consent awards, the single-judge bench held that the alleged non-production of original award and signature on blank papers did not meet statutory grounds for review under Section 114/Order 47 CPC. The applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Maruti Manik Jadhav and Others Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

revappln1270.17.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 1270 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2539 OF 2015

¶5

Maruti Manik Jadhav & others

¶6

Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. M.G. Deokate, advocate for applicants. Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.S. Dande, advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶11

WITH

¶12

REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 1272 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2538 OF 2015

¶13

Ashraji Santaram Jadhav (Deceased through LRs) & others

¶14

Applicants

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶17

Respondents

¶18

Mr. M.G. Deokate, advocate for applicants. Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.S. Dande, advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶19

WITH

¶20

REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 1274 OF 2017 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 2537 OF 2015

¶21

Balbhim Namdeo Jadhav & another

Applicants

Versus

{2}

revappln1270.17.odt

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶27

Respondents

¶28

Mr. M.G. Deokate, advocate for applicants. Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.S. Dande, advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶29

CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J. DATE : 16^th JANUARY, 2018

¶30

PER COURT:

¶31

Mr. Deokate, learned counsel for review applicants submits that in this case, the original consent award on the basis of which, the applicants were not suited by the reference Court was never produced on record. He submits that applicants were made to sign on blank papers and they accepted the compensation under protest.

¶32

In this case, this Court, upon considering and appreciating the evidence, has, dismissed the first appeal by judgment and order dated 19.09.2016. The grounds raised by learned counsel Mr. Deokate do not qualify as grounds contemplated by section 114 r/w Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶33

Taking into consideration the restrictive parameters of review jurisdiction, it is not possible to entertain these review applications. Accordingly, review applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

( M.S. SONAK, J. )

¶35

dyb

Maruti Manik Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Manik Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Anr.

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

Hirabai Bansilal Bagdiya Died by Lrs and Ors. Vs Shivprasad Permanand Biyani Died Lrs and Ors.

Chandrakala Madhukar Mengawde and Others Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thr Irs Div. Manager, Aurangabad and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Medium Project (P.B.NO.2) Division, Osmanabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M I D C Nashik Vs Dhanraj Gorakh Patil

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Thr Lift Irrigation Division,Osmanabad Vs Narsingh Vinayakrao Patil and Others

Maruti Manik Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Anr.