Allowed

Yogesh Popatlal Soni and Anr. v. Union of India Thr. General Manager

Bombay HC9 Nov 2023WP/7470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ to allow withdrawal of fixed deposit compensation amounts awarded post-railway accident. The Court held the amounts were compensation for daily expenses, quashed the order requiring investment, and directed the Railway Claims Tribunal to allow withdrawal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed order directing investment and directed Railway Claims Tribunal to allow withdrawal of compensation amounts within eight weeks.

Yogesh Popatlal Soni and Anr. Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

WP 7470-2023.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7470 OF 2023

¶5

Yogesh Popatlal Soni & anr.

¶6

.Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Union of India .Respondent

¶9

Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat a/w. Mr. Jagdish Choudhary i/b. M/s. Raj Legal, Advocate, for the Petitioners

¶10

Mr. J. S. Saluja a/w. Ms. Desiree Allams, Advocate, for the Respondent

¶11

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 09.11.2023

¶12

P. C.

¶13

Heard Mr. Shekhawat, learned counsel appearing for

¶14

the Petitioners and Mr. Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶15

The Petitioners fled an Original Application No. 149

¶16

of 2018 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (“ Tribunal ”) on 29.01.2018 seeking compensation in view of death of wife of Petitioner No. 1 and mother of Petitioner No. 2. On 21.11.2019, the said case was settled and the Respondent agreed to pay an

¶17

amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Petitioners. By order dated

¶18

21.11.2019, the Tribunal passed the order directing the said

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

WP 7470-2023.doc

¶21

amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded to Petitioner No. 2 and Rs. 3,50,000/- awarded to Petitioner No. 1 to be respectively invested in Fixed Deposit. Insofar as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid per month to him. Thereafter, the Petitioners have fled an application in the year 2020 seeking withdrawal of the said amount. The said Application was rejected by the impugned order dated 03.05.2021.

¶22

It is to be noted that in the said Railway accident, Petitioner No. 1 has lost his wife, who is the mother of Petitioner No. 2. It is stated in the Application that they are in need of the said amount.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that in fact, order directing investing the aforesaid amount in Fixed Deposit is in the interest of the Petitioners. However, undisputedly, the said amount is their compensation amount, and the Petitioners require the said amount for their day to day expenses.

¶24

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

WP 7470-2023.doc

¶27

prayer clause (a). The said prayer clause (a) reads as under :-

¶28

“a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and after verifying legality, validity and propriety of impugned order dated 03.05.2021 passed in Misc. Application No. 363 of 2020, be quashed and set aside and the Petitioners be allowed to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to them vide order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Original Application No. 149 of 2018.”

¶29

The Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai is directed to allow withdrawal of the aforesaid amounts to the respective Petitioners within eight weeks from today.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with

¶31

no order as to costs.

¶32

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶33

3 of 3

Yogesh Popatlal Soni and Anr. v. Union of India Thr. General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Popatlal Soni and Anr. v. Union of India Thr. General Manager

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

Smt. Sarala Anupkumar Sony and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Ministry of Co. Op and Textile and Anr.

Pallabhkrishna Nityanand Bose and Anr. Vs Rupee Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Pallabhkrishna Nityanand Bose and Anr. Vs Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Kiran Ravindra Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Ramesh Agarwal and Ors. Vs the Deputy Registrar Csd Ward and Ors.

Medha Nitin Vaidya and Ors. Vs Jayvant Parshuram Naik and Ors.