Allowed

The Tapi Irri. Devlop. Officer, Thr the Ex. Engineer, M.I.W. Jalgaon and Anr. v. Ramesh Ramchandra Raut

Bombay HC20 Sept 2021CA/4450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In connex Civil Applications, this High Court vacated interim stay protection previously granted to appellants for failing to deposit 60% of awarded amounts within the stipulated 12-week conditional period, rejecting their excuses, and allowing enforcement applications filed by claimants.

What did the court decide?

All connected Civil Applications for stay rejected; Civil Application No.6314/2021 and connected ones allowed.

The Tapi Irri. Devlop. Officer, Thr the Ex… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4433.21ca etc

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4433 OF 2021 IN

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2021

¶6

THE TAPI IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THR THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.W., JALGAON AND ANR VERSUS

¶7

PANDHARINATH JAGANNATH HADPE

¶8

AND

¶9

CA/4435/2021 IN FA/1201/2021 AND

¶10

CA/4446/2021 IN FA/1190/2021

¶11

AND CA/4448/2021 IN FA/1195/2021

¶12

AND CA/4453/2021 IN FA/1191/2021

¶13

AND

¶14

CA/4455/2021 IN FA/1196/2021

¶15

AND

¶16

CA/4431/2021 IN FA/1187/2021

¶17

AND

¶18

CA/4444/2021 IN FA/1189/2021

¶19

AND

¶20

CA/4450/2021 IN FA/1194/2021

¶21

AND

¶22

CA/4461/2021 IN FA/1198/2021

¶23

AND

¶24

CA/4457/2021 IN FA/1192/2021

¶25

AND

¶26

CA/4459/2021 IN FA/1188/2021

¶27

AND

¶28

CA/4440/2021 IN FA/1197/2021

¶29

AND CA/4438/2021 IN FA/1199/2021

¶30

AND CA/4442/2021 IN FA/1200/2021

¶31

4433.21ca etc

¶32

(2)

¶33

Mr R. A. Tambe, Advocate for applicants; Mr S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, A.G.P. for applicant/State Mr A. B. Kale, Advocate for respondents

¶34

AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6314 OF 2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1191 OF 2021

¶35

DILIP BHURALAL SHARMA

¶36

VERSUS

¶37

THE TAPI IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THR THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.W., JALGAON AND ANR

¶38

AND CA/6321/2021 IN FA/1198/2021 CA/6320/2021 IN FA/1197/2021 CA/6324/2021 IN FA/1201/2021 CA/6323/2021 IN FA/1200/2021 CA/6311/2021 IN FA/1188/2021 CA/6316/2021 IN FA/1193/2021 CA/6317/2021 IN FA/1194/2021 CA/6318/2021 IN FA/1195/2021 CA/6313/2021 IN FA/1190/2021 CA/6310/2021 IN FA/1187/2021 CA/6312/2021 IN FA/1189/2021 CA/6322/2021 IN FA/1199/2021 CA/6319/2021 IN FA/1196/2021 CA/6315/2021 IN FA/1192/2021

¶39

Mr A. B. Kale, Advocate for appellant/s; Mr R. A. Tambe, Advocate for respondent No.1; Mr S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, A.G.P. for respondent/State

¶40

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶41

DATE : 20th September, 2021

4433.21ca etc

(3)

PER COURT:

In Civil Application No.4433/2021 and connected civil applications for stay, except Civil Application No.6314/2021 and connected civil applications filed by the claimants, seeking vacating of the ad interim order, we had granted conditional protection to the appellants vide our order dated 07/04/2021. The appellants were directed to deposit 60% of the amounts as awarded by the the Reference Court within 12 weeks.

¶46

On 26/08/2021, it was brought to our notice by Shri. Kale, learned Advocate representing the claimants that neither the appellants have complied with the directions of this Court, dated 07/04/2021 while enjoying conditional interim relief, nor had they sought liberty. A further contention was made that those claimants whose awards were delivered later in comparison to the claimants before the Court, were disbursed their compensation amounts. Shri. Kale had alleged unfairness and bias on the part of the appellants.

¶47

Even today, the amounts have not been deposited though the appellants were expected to do so by end of June 2021.

¶48

4433.21ca etc

¶49

(4)

¶50

Today, the learned Advocate for the appellants submits that he has sought directions from the appellants. The amounts are admittedly not deposited. The appellants can not make a statement within how many days they would deposit the amounts in this Court.

¶51

He also submits that due to COVID-19, as the Administrative Committee had extended the interim order, the appellants contend that they did not file a formal application for extension.

¶52

We cannot appreciate this contention for the reason that this Court had imposed a condition of depositing the amounts for enjoying the relief. The learned Administrative Committee of this Court has not passed any order saying that such conditional orders should be ignored by the litigants and they should only enjoy the interim relief granted by this Court. This argument of the appellants is not only unethical, but an insult to the Court.

¶53

4433.21ca etc (5)

¶54

In view of the above, we find that the appellants have merely enjoyed the protection granted by this Court by ignoring the condition of depositing 60% of the awarded amounts. Had the appellants sought an extension of a week or two after expiry of 12 weeks, either oral or through an application, we could have considered it. Beyond 12 weeks, it is almost 12 more weeks that the amounts have not been deposited. We, therefore, cannot ignore the serious grievance voiced by the claimants.

¶55

In view of the above, the interim protection granted by this Court stands vacated. All the civil applications for stay stand rejected.

¶56

Consequentially, Civil Application No.6314/2021 and connected civil applications filed by the claimants are allowed.

¶57

The claimants are at liberty to proceed to seek the execution of the award.

¶58

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

¶59

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶60

sjk

The Tapi Irri. Devlop. Officer, Thr the Ex. Engineer, M.I.W. Jalgaon and Anr. v. Ramesh Ramchandra Raut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tapi Irri. Devlop. Officer, Thr the Ex. Engineer, M.I.W. Jalgaon and Anr. v. Ramesh Ramchandra Raut

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

Eknath Bhivsen Gorade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ritika Harish Oberoi and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Shrirang Kisan Kardile and Others Vs the Government of India and Others

Subhash Namdeo Tantak and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Janikram Bharate and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheshrao Bhimrao Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others