Disposed

Renu Jaspal Premi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2019WP/5819/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay directed petitioners, who are legal heirs of a deceased employee, to execute an undertaking, an indemnity bond, and furnish independent surety within two weeks. Upon compliance, the Collector was instructed to release the remitted amount with accrued interest to the petitioners' bank account.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to release the legacy amount with interest to petitioners after receipt of undertaking, indemnity bond and independent surety.

Renu Jaspal Premi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr. — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Vishal P

¶2

1/3 46-wp-5819-2018.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5819 OF 2018

¶5

Renu Jaspal Premi and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. C.G. Gavnekar a/w. Mr. G.S. Hiranandani, for the Petitioners Mr. N.C. Walimbe, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 6^th MARCH 2019.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Petitioner No. 1 widow, her daughter and son have approached this Court for direction to Respondent No. 2 Collector to disburse to Petitioners the amount of Rs. 7,90,000/- sent to that office by his employer. The amount due to late husband has been forwarded by Embassy of India at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to Respondent No. 2 mentioning Petitioner No. 1 as legal heir and with request to pay the amount to all the legal heirs after due inquiry/ verification and to send the receipt duly signed by legal heirs.

¶11

Respondent No. 2 Collector therefore has insisted for production of succession certificate.

¶12

Vishal P 2/3 46-wp-5819-2018.doc

¶13

Here the employer had disclosed the name of Petitioner No. 1 as legal heir and accordingly Indian Embassy at Riyadh has communicated the same to Respondent No. 2. That widow namely Petitioner No. 1 has fairly pointed out that along with her, her daughter and son are also entitled to share. Accordingly, all three are jointly before this Court with a prayer to direct Respondent No. 2 to make over that amount to them.

¶14

During arguments, counsel for the Petitioners stated that Petitioners shall also furnish independent surety for said amount so that in case of difficulty the amount can be recovered from the said surety.

¶15

Learned AGP is relying upon orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6683 of 2018 dated 18^th July, 2018. We find that order dated 18^th July, 2018 cannot be seen as precedent and there liberty has been given to Petitioner therein to approach office of Collector again.

¶16

Here facts at hand clearly show that employer has recognized Petitioner No. 1 as one of the legal heir and that legal heir has brought on record two more legal heirs.

¶17

Vishal P

¶18

3/3 46-wp-5819-2018.doc

¶19

We therefore direct Petitioners to execute an undertaking and the indemnity bond thereby accepting to repay the amount received by them with appropriate interest to Respondent No. 2 if occasion there arises. Such undertaking on affidavit be furnished within two weeks.

¶20

During said period they shall also furnish independent surety for said amount. After receipt of such surety and affidavits, Respondent No. 2 shall release the amount along with interest accrued upon it and deposit the same in bank account of Petitioner No. 1 for all Petitioners.

¶21

The submission of Respondent No. 2 that it has no authority to adjudicate on question of legal heirs, need not be again looked into in present matter as there is no scope for it here.

¶22

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.

¶23

( REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶24

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes order dated 15^th March, 2019.

Renu Jaspal Premi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Jaspal Premi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr.

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

Capt. Pawanpreet Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Tansukhdas Panjwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Tansukhdas Panjwani (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Rupali Ghawale Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shreeman Real Estates Developers LLP and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Vivek Nagesh Gangekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.