Disposed

Babasaheb Kisan Raut and Others v. Rahu Dwivedi and Another

Bombay HC9 Jul 2021CA/4357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt matter, the High Court of Bombay allowed applicants to withdraw a deposited deposit of Rs. 10 lakh by way of partial satisfaction of the earlier writ order, subject to an undertaking to repay within one month if the respondents' Supreme Court appeal is allowed.

What did the court decide?

Permitted applicants to withdraw Rs. 10 lakh deposited by respondents subject to undertaking to repay within one month if Special Leave Petition is allowed.

Babasaheb Kisan Raut and Others Vs Rahu Dwivedi and… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

CA No.4357/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4357 OF 2021 IN CP/878/2018 WITH CP/878/2018 IN WP/7396/2016

¶5

BABASAHEB KISAN RAUT AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RAHU DWIVEDI AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Applicants :Mr. Jadhavar Santosh S. AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. K.N. Lokhande

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R.N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : 09/07/2021.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. Heard Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel for applicants

¶12

and Mr. Lokhande, learned counsel for respondents.

¶13

This Court in Writ Petition No.7396 of 2016 under order 24^th February 2018 held that the present applicants are entitled for ACPS benefts upon completion of twelve years of their service and directed the respondents to calculate the amount and make the payment within three months. Though more than three years have lapsed, the petitioners have not received the benefts of the order.

¶14

The present applicants fled Contempt Petition bearing No. 878/2018. This Court under it’s order dated 11^th

¶15

CA No.4357/2021

¶16

¶17

February, 2020 directed the present non applicants to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) subject to fnal outcome of the contempt petition. The claim of the applicants is that they are entitled to receive the amount of more than Rs.40,00,000/(Rupees forty lakh) as per the order passed under the writ petition.

¶18

Mr. Lokhande, learned counsel for respondents submits that respondents have preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court bearing No.15933/2018 against the order passed in writ petition. The Apex Court has issued notice to the respondents and the same is pending. The learned counsel submits that two of the applicants have retired and four are in service and who would be retiring in near future. It would be difcult to recover the amount from them in case S.L.P. is allowed.

¶19

Mr. Jadhavar, learned advocate for applicants submits that the Apex Court has not stayed the order passed by this Court in writ petition.

¶20

It would be in nobody’s interest to keep the amount idle. In case, S.L.P. is allowd, the non applicants can recover the amount from the applicants either from their retirement benefts

¶21

CA No.4357/2021

¶22

¶23

or pension and/or salary.

¶24

In the light of above, we pass the following order :-

¶25

(I) The applicants are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh) deposited in this Court by the non applicants in the proportion as detailed at Annexure ‘A’, page 7 of the present civil application No. 4357/2021 on condition that these applicants give undertaking to the Court that in the event, S.L.P. fled by the respondents is allowed, they would repay the amount withdrawn pursuant to the order within one month.

¶26

Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶27

[ R.N. LADDHA, J. ] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶28

ssc/

Babasaheb Kisan Raut and Others v. Rahu Dwivedi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Kisan Raut and Others v. Rahu Dwivedi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digvijay Enterprises Nashik Thr Its Proprietor Sahebrao Damu Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Omkar Ganpat Dahiwade Under Guardian of Real Sister Priyanka Ganpat Dahiwade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajendra Deorao Janjal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahesh Inderchandji Kankariya Thr Power of Attorney Holder and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pranjal Prabhakar Jadhav Vs the Union of India and Others