Dismissed

Vilas Shivdas Padwal and Ors. v. Mr. Maheshkumar v Meghmale and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2019CP/555/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition filed by displaced persons alleging a breach of interim order conditions by the acquiring body. The court held that since the stay order was contingent upon depositing the compensation amount within stipulated time, failure to deposit rendered the order non-operative, leaving no cause for contempt.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not tenable. Petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps if advised.

Vilas Shivdas Padwal and Ors. Vs Mr. Maheshkumar v… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

555.19cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.555 OF 2019 IN

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.488 OF 2019

¶6

Vilas S/o Shivdas Padwal, Age: 66 years, Occu: Agriculture

¶7

Sharad S/o Shivdas Padwal, Age: 51 years, Occu:Agriculture

¶8

Vijay S/o Haridas Padwal, Age: 52 years, Occu:Agriculture

¶9

Vivek S/o Haridas Padwal, Age: 44 years, Occu. Agriculture

¶10

Rajabhau S/o Shivdas Padwal, Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 All R/o: Uple (M), Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS

¶11

Mr Maheshkumar V. Meghmale Age: Major, Occu: Service working as: Divisional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, MIDC Industrial Area, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur

¶12

Mr Chetan Girase Age: Major, Occu: Service working as: Sub-Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

¶13

555.19cp

¶14

(2)

¶15

The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners

¶17

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶18

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶19

DATE : 4th OCTOBER, 2019

¶20

ORAL ORDER:

¶21

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶22

By an order dated 23rd August, 2019, a simple notice was issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, making the same returnable on 4th October, 2019. Today, on going through the order dated 11th January, 2019, passed by this Court in Civil Application No.13406 of 2018, it is revealed that the Division Bench of this Court in para 3 of the order, observed that :

¶23

"3. ............. This Court holds that appellant acquiring body needs to be directed to deposit entire amount for giving the stay order. So application is allowed subject to condition of depositing entire compensation amount in this Court within eight weeks from today."

¶24

555.19cp

¶25

(3)

¶26

Civil Application Nos.14047 of 2017 and other applications were disposed of.

¶27

It is the submission of Mr Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents are misusing the order of this Court and are only interested in prolonging the matter while enjoying the benefit of the interim order. It is also the submission of Mr Salunke that the application filed on behalf of the present petitioners (original respondents to the First Appeal), seeking directions to deposit the amount in this Court is also disposed of. Mr Salunke thereafter submits that the respondents cannot be permitted to take benefit of this peculiar situation wherein they are being protected by an interim order but have not complied with the directions therein. Mr Salunke, on this premise submitted that as this is a breach of directions of this Court, the petitioners are approaching this Court by way of present contempt petition.

¶28

Though the submission of Mr Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners looks attractive at the first blush, we are unable to accept it for more than one reason. Firstly, the acquiring body, which had filed first appeal, filed respective applications seeking interim order in the nature of stay. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 11th January, 2019 directed the acquiring body to deposit the amount

¶29

555.19cp

¶30

(4)

¶31

within stipulated period of eight weeks and it is specifically stated that the application for grant of stay is allowed subject to condition of depositing entire amount of compensation within eight weeks from the date of order.

¶32

At the cost of repetition, we state that the present petitioners have also filed an application seeking directions to the acquiring body to deposit the amount. The Division Bench of this Court granted interim order in the nature of stay, subject to the acquiring body fulfilling the condition of depositing the amount in this Court within the stipulated period. Thus, the applicant i.e acquiring body could have enjoyed the interim order of stay, only on fulfilling the condition precedent i.e deposit of amount in this Court within the stipulated period. The applications were disposed of, which would mean that if the condition precedent of depositing amount in this Court within the stipulated period is not complied by the applicant - acquiring body, there is no interim order operating in favour of the acquiring body. It is the submission of the present petitioners that the acquiring body has failed to deposit amount within the stipulated period and we reiterate that only result a non-operative order in favour of the acquiring body.

¶33

555.19cp

¶34

(5)

¶35

In such a peculiar situation, we see no reason to entertain this contempt petition. The petition is dismissed as not tenable. We, however, make it clear that the present petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps as they deem and desire, if so advised.

¶36

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶37

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶38

sjk

Vilas Shivdas Padwal and Ors. v. Mr. Maheshkumar v Meghmale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas Shivdas Padwal and Ors. v. Mr. Maheshkumar v Meghmale 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

Gangamai Education Trusts through Its Chairman Manohar Dattatraya Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Bhaskara Agencies through Partner Vs Union of India and Others

M/S Renuka Gas Services through Its Partner Vs Union of India and Others

Dayanand Vaijinathappa Swami Vs Ravindra Sontakke and Another

Shankar Tatyaba Sangle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijaykumar Nilkanth Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others