Allowed

Diwan Nimba Girase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2019CA/2228/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in batch of civil applications concerning condonation of delay in filing cross-objections in appeals regarding land acquisition awards. The court condoned the delay but disentitled claimants from interest on any enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing cross-objections condoned; cross-objections registered; claimants disentitled to interest on enhanced compensation.

Diwan Nimba Girase Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1593 OF 2012

¶5

IN X-OBJST/160/2012

¶6

SITARAM GULABCHAND AGRAWAL

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER

¶9

...

¶10

905 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6789 OF 2012
IN X-OBJST/13679/2012

¶11

GOPAL VASANT SURWASE AND ANR

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶14

...

¶15

906 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1895 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/2512/2013 WITH FA/2304/2010 WITH

¶16

FA/2307/2010 WITH FA/2309/2010 WITH FA/2310/2010 WITH
FA/2311/2010 WITH FA/2312/2010 WITH CA/6184/2011 IN
FA/2312/2010 WITH FA/2316/2010 WITH FA/2317/2010 WITH
FA/2318/2010 WITH FA/2319/2010 WITH FA/2320/2010 WITH
CA/9697/2012 IN X-OBJST/20738/2012

¶17

SIDDAPPA BASWANT MALGE, DIED THR. L.RS. VIRBHADRA AND
ORS

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

THE M.I.D.C. THROUGH DIVISIONAL /REGIONAL OFFICER LATUR
AND ORS

¶20

...

¶21

907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4994 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/33715/2012 WITH CA/1980/2012 IN FA/268/2012

¶22

MANJUBAI PRAVINKUMAR KHANDELWAL AND ORS

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶25

...

¶26

908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5714 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/12263/2013

¶27

USHA ANIL PATIL

¶28

VERSUS

¶29

JAYSHREE TEJRAO DHAGE AND ANR

¶30

...

¶31

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶32

(2)

¶33

909 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6100 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/12774/2013

¶34

PREMSINH HAMBARSINH GIRASE(DEAD) LRS NAVALSINH
HAMBARSINH GIRASE AND ORS

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DHULE MEDIUM PROJET NO. 1

¶37

...

¶38

910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8669 OF 2013

¶39

IN X-OBJST/17159/2013

¶40

LAXMAN DAYARAM KHACHANE

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶43

...

¶44

911 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10522 OF 2013

¶45

IN X-OBJST/22376/2013

¶46

ABDUL HAQ ABDUL KARIM DIED TH LRS SAMIR ABDUL HAQ

¶47

DESHMUKH AND ORS

¶48

VERSUS

¶49

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHULE AND OTHERS

¶50

...

¶51

912 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10891 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/22358/2013

¶52

BAHIDAS HILAL PATIL

¶53

VERSUS

¶54

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHULE AND OTHERS

¶55

...

¶56

913 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15663 OF 2013
IN X-OBJST/29675/2013 WITH CA/6978/2010 IN FA/1953/2011

¶57

RAOSAHEB BHIMRAO JADHAV

¶58

VERSUS

¶59

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶60

...

¶61

914 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.833 OF 2014

¶62

IN X-OBJST/21367/2013

¶63

KAMALBAI GANGARAM PATIL

¶64

VERSUS

¶65

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, DHULE
AND ANOTHER

¶66

...

¶67

915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.839 OF 2014

¶68

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶69

(3)

¶70

IN X-OBJST/21377/2013

¶71

BHAUSAHEB POPAT KHAIRNAR AND ANR

¶72

VERSUS

¶73

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION AND
ANOTHER

¶74

...

¶75

916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.840 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/29685/2013

¶76

MAHADU RAMA BIRAJDAR

¶77

VERSUS

¶78

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶79

...

¶80

917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.841 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21657/2013

¶81

SUSHILABAI RAGHUNATH KHAIRNAR

¶82

VERSUS

¶83

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION AND
ANOTHER

¶84

...

¶85

918 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.842 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21382/2013

¶86

HIRALAL KASHINATH PATIL AND ORS

¶87

VERSUS

¶88

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, DHULE
AND ANOTHER

¶89

...

¶90

919 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.843 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/21659/2013

¶91

CHANDRABHAN RAGHUNATH PATIL

¶92

VERSUS

¶93

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION AND
ANOTHER

¶94

...

¶95

920 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/29674/2013

¶96

BALIRAM RAMAJI BIRAJDAR

¶97

VERSUS

¶98

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶99

...

¶100

921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2228 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/1788/2014

¶101

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶102

(4)

¶103

DIWAN NIMBA GIRASE VERSUS

¶104

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS.

¶105

...

¶106

922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2969 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/13645/2009 IN FA/553/2009 WITH CA/1748/2008
IN FA/553/2009

¶107

SHANTABAI ATMARAM JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

¶108

...

¶109

923 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2970 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/13640/2009 IN FA/548/2009 WITH CA/1726/2008
IN FA/548/2009

¶110

JAIDEV JYOTIRAM TANDLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

¶111

...

¶112

924 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2971 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/13636/2009 IN FA/552/2009 WITH CA/1739/2008
IN FA/552/2009

¶113

ATMARAM SITARAM JADHAV

¶114

VERSUS

¶115

THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

¶116

...

¶117

925 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5138 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/9779/2014

¶118

BABASAHEB NAMDEO KADAM DECEASED THRO. LRS. SATYAPREM

¶119

BABASAHEB KADAM

¶120

VERSUS

¶121

GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BEED AND ANOTHER

¶122

...

¶123

926 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5139 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/9787/2014

¶124

GHANSHAYM BHAURAO PAITHANE DECEASED THRO. LRS. BANSI

¶125

GHANSHYAM PAITHANE AND OTHER

¶126

VERSUS

¶127

GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
BEED AND ANOTHER

¶128

...

¶129

927 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8284 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/9785/2014

¶130

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶131

(5)

¶132

RAMESHSWAR NAMDEO PAITHANE AND AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶133

GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION , BEED AND ANOTHER

¶134

...

¶135

928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11965 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/28116/2014

¶136

NANABHAU RAGHO BEDSE

¶137

VERSUS

¶138

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION NO.1 AND
ANOTHER

¶139

...

¶140

929 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12149 OF 2014
IN X-OBJST/28114/2014

¶141

SUNDARBAI RAGHO BEDSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS

¶142

NANBAHU RAGHO BEDSE

¶143

VERSUS

¶144

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION NO.1 DHULE
AND ANOTHER

¶145

...

¶146

930 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.309 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/27052/2014

¶147

SURESH NATHU PATIL

¶148

VERSUS

¶149

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION DHULE

¶150

AND ANOTHER

¶151

...

¶152

931 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2497 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/22823/2014

¶153

VISHWAS ANANDA DESALE

¶154

VERSUS

¶155

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GENERAL AND
ANOTHER

¶156

...

¶157

932 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4123 OF 2015

¶158

IN X-OBJST/6013/2015 WITH CA/15665/2013 IN FA/46/2013

¶159

SHRIKANT SHRIPATI LOKHANDE

¶160

VERSUS

¶161

GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVNOSMANABAD AND OTHERS

¶162

...

¶163

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶164

(6)

¶165

933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5485 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/23342/2014

¶166

NOOR MOHAMMAD CHINDHA DESHMUKH

¶167

VERSUS

¶168

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DHULE AND OTHERS

¶169

...

¶170

934 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7681 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/6015/2015

¶171

WALMIK SHRIPATI LOKHANDE

¶172

VERSUS

¶173

GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVNOSMANABAD

¶174

...

¶175

935 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7688 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/6017/2015

¶176

DHONDIBA SHRIPATI LOKHANDE

¶177

VERSUS

¶178

GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIFT IRRIGATION
DIVNOSMANABAD AND OTHERS

¶179

...

¶180

936 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9684 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/12499/2015

¶181

NARMADABAI HIRALAL GUJARATHI DIED THR L.RS. NARAYAN

¶182

MOHANLAL GUJARATHI

¶183

VERSUS

¶184

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶185

...

¶186

937 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14942 OF 2015
IN X-OBJST/33283/2015

¶187

BHAGWAN DEVIDAS NARWADE
VERSUS

¶188

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶189

...

¶190

938 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6251 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/6580/2016

¶191

KAJAL SUBHASH KAMBLE

¶192

VERSUS

¶193

LATUR SOLVENT PVT. LTD. THR ITS PROP. SHAMTILAL
KISHANLAL SHABU AND ORS

¶194

...

¶195

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶196

(7)

¶197

939 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6264 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/25971/2015

¶198

GULAM DASTGIR DAUDSAHEB ANSARI AND ORS
VERSUS

¶199

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶200

...

¶201

940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8475 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/4473/2016 WITH CA/6107/2013 IN FA/1703/2015
WITH CA/6110/2013 IN FA/1704/2015 WITH CA/6112/2013 IN
FA/1708/2015 WITH CA/6114/2013 IN FA/1706/2015 WITH
CA/6116/2013 IN FA/1707/2015 WITH CA/6118/2013 IN
FA/1712/2015 WITH CA/6120/2013 IN FA/1711/2015 WITH
CA/6122/2013 IN FA/1710/2015 WITH CA/6124/2013 IN
FA/1709/2015 WITH CA/6126/2013 IN FA/1705/2015 WITH
CA/8477/2016 IN X-OBJST/4486/2016 WITH CA/8478/2016 IN
X-OBJST/4495/2016 WITH CA/8479/2016 IN X-

¶202

OBJST/4476/2016 WITH CA/8480/2016 IN X-OBJST/4471/2016
WITH CA/8481/2016 IN X-OBJST/4478/2016 WITH

¶203

CA/8482/2016 IN X-OBJST/4489/2016 WITH CA/8483/2016 IN
X-OBJST/4492/2016 WITH CA/8484/2016 IN X-
OBJST/4481/2016 WITH CA/8485/2016 IN X-OBJST/4484/2016

¶204

BHASKAR RAMKISHAN KOMPLE

¶205

VERSUS

¶206

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶207

...

¶208

941 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8486 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10455/2016

¶209

SUBHASH GYANOBA JADHAV DIED THR LRS NIRMALABAI AND ORS

¶210

VERSUS

¶211

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶212

...

¶213

942 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8488 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10453/2016

¶214

WAMAN GYANOBA JADHAV AND ORS

¶215

VERSUS

¶216

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶217

...

¶218

943 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8489 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10461/2016

¶219

VAIJANATH HAVGIRAO BIRADAR

¶220

VERSUS

¶221

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶222

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶223

(8)

¶224

...

¶225

944 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8490 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10447/2016

¶226

GANPAT BAPURAO MANDUMALE

¶227

VERSUS

¶228

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶229

...

¶230

945 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8499 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10459/2016

¶231

VASANTRAO BAPURAO SAGAR
VERSUS

¶232

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶233

...

¶234

946 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8500 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10465/2016

¶235

SHANKAR BAPURAO MANDUMALE SAGAR AND ORS
VERSUS

¶236

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶237

...

¶238

947 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8502 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10451/2016

¶239

VITHAL HANMANTRAO KINE

¶240

VERSUS

¶241

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶242

...

¶243

948 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8503 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10467/2016

¶244

SAMBHAJI MAROTI PATIL (JADHAV) AND ORS
VERSUS

¶245

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶246

...

¶247

949 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8505 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10463/2016

¶248

ASHOK AMRUTRAO MORE AND ORS

¶249

VERSUS

¶250

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶251

...

¶252

950 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8506 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10457/2016

¶253

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶254

(9)

¶255

KASHINATH HAVGIRAO BIRADAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶256

...

¶257

951 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8507 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10469/2016

¶258

PRABHU GYANOBA MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶259

...

¶260

952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8508 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/10449/2016

¶261

NAMDEO VENKATRAO JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶262

...

¶263

953 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9916 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/16677/2016

¶264

SHANKUNTALABAI KISHAN SONAWANE AND OTHERS

¶265

VERSUS

¶266

GODAWARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DVELOPMENT
CORPORATIONAURANGABAD THROUGH ITS EXE

¶267

...

¶268

Advocate for Applicants : Respective counsel present
S/Shri AM Phule, PM Kulkarni and SJ Salgare, AGPs for
Respondent-State (in respective matters)
Respective Counsel for Respondent/s present

¶269

---

¶270

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATED : 26th February, 2019.

¶271

PER COURT:-

¶272

1.All these applications are filed seeking
condonation of delay, which has occurred in filing
the cross-objections by the respective original
claimants in respective appeals. The appeals are
filed either by the acquiring body or by the State

¶273

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶274

(10)

¶275

Government against the judgments and Awards passed
in Land Acquisition References (LARs). The period
of delay varies in every application. In some
applications when the delay is of a shorter period,
delay caused in some of the matters is of a huge
period. In every application attempt has been made
to justify the said delay and variety of reasons
are assigned.

¶276

2.Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41
of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the

¶277

Code), a power has been conferred upon the
Appellate Court to extend the time to file cross-
objection. The Appellate court can grant such

¶278

further time as it may seem fit to allow.

¶279

3.The issue as about condonation of delay

¶280

in filing the cross-objection was for consideration

¶281

before this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kalu Ladku Mhatre – 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 741. I deem it appropriate to reproduce

¶282

herein below the discussion made by this court in
regard to the said issue in paras 5 to 7 of the
said judgment, which read thus, -

¶283

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶284

(11)

¶285

“5. I have given careful consideration
to the submissions. The first issue is
regarding the condonation of delay in
filing the Cross Objection. A Reference
will have to be made to Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Order XLI of the said Code
which reads thus:

¶286

" Any respondent, though he may not
have appealed from any part of the
decree, may not only support the
decree [but may also state that the
finding against him in the Court
below in respect of any issue ought
to have been in his favour; and may
also take any cross-objection] to
the decree which he could have taken
by way of appeal, provided he has
filed such objection in the
Appellate Court within one month
from the date of service on him or
his pleader of notice of the day
fixed for hearing the appeal, or
within such further time as the
Appellate Court may see fit to
allow."

¶287

6. Thus, under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22
of Order XLI of the said Code, a power
has been conferred upon the Appellate
Court to extend the time to file Cross
Objection. The Appellate Court can
grant such further time as it may see
fit to allow. The Sub-Rule (1) of Rule
22 does not lay down that sufficient
cause is required to be shown by the
respondent. As the said Code vests the
power to extend the time to file Cross-
Objection in the Appellate Court, it is
not at all necessary for the respondent
in Appeal to invoke Section 5of the
Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5of the
Limitation Act reads thus:

¶288

"Extension of prescribed period of
certain cases - Any appeal or any
application,otherthanan
application under any of the
provisions of Order XXI of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be
admitted after the prescribed
period, if the appellant or the
applicant satisfied the Court that

¶289

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶290

(12)

¶291

he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the
application within such period."

¶292

7. The last part of Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Order XLI deals with the
grant of extension of time for filing
of Cross Objection and Section 5of the
Limitation Act deals with the extension
of time to prefer an Appeal. Section 5
of the Limitation Act incorporates a
condition precedent of the appellant
satisfying the Appellate Court that he
had sufficient cause for not preferring
the Appeal within the prescribed period
of limitation. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22
of Order XLI does not incorporate the
stringent requirement of establishing a
sufficient cause. Thus, a wide power to
extend the time to file Cross-
Objection has been vested in the
Appellate Court. Though there is no
requirement of establishing sufficient
cause within the meaning of Section 5
of the Limitation Act, in the
application for seeking extension of
time to file Cross-Objection, brief
reasons for delay will have to be set
out. A wider discretion has been
conferred on the Appellate Court under
the Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 than what
is conferred by Section 5of the
Limitation Act. The power to extend
time under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 of
Order XLI of the Code has to be
liberally exercised in case where a
Cross-Objection is sought to be filed
before the Appeal is heard for final
hearing.”

¶293

4.In the aforesaid matter, First Appeal
which was filed in the year 2002 was listed on
Board for final hearing, for the first time, in
June 2011. Thereafter cross-objection was filed.
The reason, as was assigned in justification of the

¶294

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶295

(13)

¶296

delay caused in preferring the application was
that, the respondent had instructed his Advocate to
file the cross-objection, however, he was informed
that the court fees is required to be paid and for
various reasons the court fees could not be

¶297

arranged by the said respondent.

¶298

5.In the matters which are before this

¶299

Court for consideration, similar reasons are
assigned by the respective respondents-claimants in
justification of the delay caused in filing the
cross-objections by them. As observed by this
Court in the cited judgment, sub-rule (1) of Rule
22 of Order 41 of the Code does not incorporate the
stringent requirement of establishing a sufficient
cause. This Court has further observed in the

¶300

cited judgment that a wide power to extend time to
file cross-objection has been vested in the
Appellate court. It has also observed that the
power to extend the time under sub-rule (1) of Rule
22 of Order 41 of the Code has to be liberally
exercised in a case where cross-objection is sought

¶301

to be filed before the appeal is listed for final
hearing. Having regard to the view taken by this

¶302

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶303

(14)

¶304

Court in the case cited supra, though I am inclined
to condone the delay, while exercising such
discretion in favour of the respondents-claimants,
it appears to me that since the respondents-
claimants did not file the cross-objection within
the period as stipulated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 22
of Order 41 of the Code, it would not be unjust and
improper if they are disentitled of the interest
for the period of delay in the event their cross-
objections are allowed and consequently the amount
of compensation is enhanced on the said enhanced
amount of compensation.

¶305

6. In the result, following order is passed,

¶306

ORDER

¶307

i.The delay occasioned in filing the
cross-objections by the respective
respondents-claimants in the respective
appeals, is condoned.

¶308

ii.The cross-objections be registered in
accordance with law.

¶309

CA 1593/2012 & Ors

¶310

ii.It is clarified that in the event of

¶311

their success in the cross-objections,
resulting in enhancement in the amount of
compensation, the respondents-claimants
shall not be entitled for the interest of
the period of delay on the enhanced
amount of compensation.

¶312

iii.Registry to list the respective
appeals along with the cross-objections
therein for final disposal in their
chronology.

¶313

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE

¶314

bdv

Diwan Nimba Girase v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwan Nimba Girase v. the State of Maharashtra 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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ananda Munjaji Kalse and Ors.

Laxmibai Baburao Samindre and Ors. Vs Gurudas Pandharinath Lakhole and Ors.

Ayeshabee Maula Pathan (Died) His Lrs Dastagir Sikandar Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jyoti Dinesh Ghamande and Others

Siddappa Baswant Malge, Died Thr. L.Rs. Virbhadra and Ors. Vs the M.I.D.C. through Divisional /Regional Officer Latur and Ors.

Bhimrao Nagorao Wanne and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Thr Its Manager Aurangabad and Anr.