Partly allowed

M.I.D.C. through Its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati v. Jugalkishor S/O Nawalkishor Kothari and Others

Bombay HC25 Jan 2023CAF/2571/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench permitted respondents to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount on undertaking and 25% on surety, subject to specific disbursement instructions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents permitted to withdraw 50% on undertaking and 25% on providing solvent surety; amount disbursed equally to Respondents 2-4.

M.I.D.C. through Its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati Vs… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 / 2 40. CAF 2571.2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 2571 OF 2022

¶4

IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2022 IN LAC NO. 435 OF 1997

¶5

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Amravati

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Jugalkishore s/o Nanvalkishore Kothari and Ors.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M.G. Sarda, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms.Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for respondent No.5.

¶11

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ. DATE : 25.01.2023.

¶12

This is an application filed by respondents(claimants) seeking withdrawal of amount deposited by appellant in pursuance of land acquisition awards.

¶13

The application is resisted by acquiring body on the count that the reference Court has awarded exorbitant compensation and thus, it is not desirable to permit entire withdrawal. It is submitted that the applicant has fair chance to succeed in the appeal.

¶14

Prity

¶15

2 / 2 40. CAF 2571.2022

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the reference Court has properly assessed the material and this Court has permitted in like petition entire withdrawal.

¶17

Considering the submissions, as well as the reasons assigned by the reference Court at present, respondents (claimants) Nos.1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount on usual undertaking and 25% on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of Registry of this Court.

¶18

As per respondents’ request the amount be disbursed in equal share to respondent Nos.2 to 4 only as respondent No.1 has assigned his rights in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶19

6. Application stands disposed of.

¶20

First Appeal Nos.464/2022

¶21

Applicant is permitted to file a private paper-book.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Signed By:PRITY S GABHANE Reason: Location: Signing Date:30.01.2023 14:49

¶25

Prity

M.I.D.C. through Its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati v. Jugalkishor S/O Nawalkishor Kothari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.D.C. through Its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati v. Jugalkishor S/O Nawalkishor Kothari and Others

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

Ankur S/O Ganesh Gir Goswami and 4 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajura Dist.Chandrapur

Aarif S/O Yusuf Sayed Vs the Registrar District and Sessions Court Buldhana Tq. and Dist.Buldhana and 2 Others

Amit S/O Gajanan Gandhi Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Nagpur

Ganesh S/O Dyandeo Fand Vs State of Maha., Thr. Pso., Ps., Jalamb, Dist. Buldana and Another

Pooja W/O Pranay Bansali and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati Tq. Dist. Amravati and Anothe

Prakash S/O Vitthal Umale and 3 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Jalamb Dist.Buldhana and Another