Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra through District Collector Ahmednagar v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC4 Feb 2019WP/6403/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court heard six writ petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging various impugned orders. The court held that identical facts existed as in a previous matter (WP No.9909/2017). It quashed the impugned orders, allowed the writ petitions partly, and directed the Executing Court to consider applications for intervention, directing decree holders to file execution applica

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were quashed and set aside. Decree holders were permitted to file execution applications under Order 21 CPC.

The State of Maharashtra through District… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

3wp6401o18group

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6401 OF 2018

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6402 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6403 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6404 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6405 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6406 OF 2018

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶7

AGP for the Petitioner / State : Shri S.R.Yadav.. Advocate for Respondent 1 and 2 / Union of India : Shri D.G.Nagode, Senior Panel Counsel.

¶8

Advocate for Respondents 3A, 3D, 3E, 3F, 5 and 6 : Shri Mahesh R. Sonwane.

¶9

Advocate for Respondent 3B in WP 6402/18 and 3A in WP 6404/18 : Shri R.V.Gore.

¶10

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶11

DATE :- 04^th February, 2019

¶12

Per Court:

¶13

1 I have heard the learned AGP for the Petitioners/ State, the

¶14

learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India and the learned Advocates appearing for the individual parties.

¶15

2 3wp6401o18group

¶16

2 In identical set of facts in Writ Petition No.9909/2017 and

¶17

connected matters, this Court has passed an order on 21.03.2018. The said writ petitions were partly allowed by setting aside the impugned identical orders and further directions were issued for permitting the Union of India to move an application for seeking intervention before the Executing Court.

¶18

3 The learned Advocates for the respective sides submit that the same order could be passed in these matters.

¶19

4 In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders, details of which are set out below, are quashed and

¶20

set aside :-

¶21

Writ Petition No.	Impugned order dated	Impugned order below Exhibit	Darkhast Num	ber
6401/2018	04.11.2017	13	Darkhast No.2	05/2016
6402/2018	28.08.2017	57	Special No.10/2005	Darkhast
6403/2018	28.08.2017	40	Regular No.89/2005	Darkhast
6404/2018	13.10.2017	44	Special No.60/2002	Darkhast
6405/2018	04.11.2017	12	Darkhast No.2	03/2016
6406/2018	17.11.2017	41	Special No.44/2002.	Darkhat

¶22

5 Needless to state, the Decree Holders are at liberty to bring

¶23

the legal heirs of the deceased decree holders in the pending execution

¶24

3 3wp6401o18group

¶25

proceedings.

¶26

6 The Union of India is at liberty to file an application for intervention before the Executing Court and the Executing Court may consider the same to the extent of finding out as to how much of the amount under the Award is still balance and outstanding.

¶27

7 The Decree Holders are at liberty to file appropriate applications under the relevant provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the award.

¶28

8 The learned Executing Court, after considering the record available and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of this order.

¶29

9 All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶30

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶31

kps

The State of Maharashtra through District Collector Ahmednagar v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra through District Collector Ahmednagar v. the Union of India and Others

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

Rekha Ramdas Dongre Vs Ramdas Dhondiram Dongre

Ramesh Kashinath Hase through Lrs Madhuri Ramesh Hase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagwat Tulshiram Bhavsar Vs Sharda Madhyamik Vidyalay and Others

Ashok Chandmal Lodha and Others Vs Mahesh Ramkrishna Patil Deshpande and Another

Rohini Shrirang Gaikwad Vs Shrirang Sadashiv Gaikwad

Gautam Vijay Bora Vs Ajay Sahebrao Baraskar and Others