Disposed

Bajarang Pandurang Kumbhar and Ors. v. Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2023WP/9609/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench disposed of the Writ Petition based on a settlement agreement (Consent Terms) signed by most petitioners and the authorized representative of Respondent No.4. Petitioner No.9 was excluded from the settlement and granted liberty to file separate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms signed by Petitioners (except No.9) and Respondent No.4; costs award is provisionally omitted.

Bajarang Pandurang Kumbhar and Ors. Vs Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

941-WP-9609-2023.doc

¶2

Arjun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.9609 OF 2023

¶5

Bajarang Pandurang Kumbhar & Ors. …Petitioners

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Chief Executive Officer, …Respondents Slum Rehabilitation Officer & Ors.

¶8

Mr. Sagar P. Batavia, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Jagdish G. Reddy, for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 7 & 8/SRA. Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, for Respondent No.2-AGRC.

¶10

Ms. Rutuja Patil a/w Hasan Mushabber i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for Respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 07, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks leave to add Petitioner Nos.11 to 16 as additional Petitioners. Leave as sought is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶14

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that except Petitioner No.3-Suresh Tembe who is suffering from Paralysis and Petitioner No.9 all other Petitioners including added Petitioner Nos.11 to 16 are present in the Court. He states that except Petitioner No.9 all the Petitioners have signed the Consent Terms. He states that although the Petitioner No.9 was earlier agreeable for the Consent Terms however, thereafter, refused to

¶15

¶16

941-WP-9609-2023.doc

¶17

sign the Consent Terms. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 states that their authorized signatory-Mr. Zakirhusain A. Chaugule is present in Court.

¶18

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 state that the parties have settled the dispute.

¶19

4. Accordingly, the Petitioners/their Constituted Attorneys who are present in the Court states that they have signed the Consent Terms and that the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.4 has been settled in terms of the Consent Terms. The signatures/thumb impressions on the Consent Terms are identified by their respective Advocates. The resolution of Respondent No.4, authorizing Mr. Zakirhusain A. Chaugule to execute the Consent Terms is annexed to the Consent Terms. Photocopies of Aadhaar Cards of all the parties are annexed to the Consent Terms. All the Petitioners/their Constituted Attorneys who are present in the Court as well as the authorized signatory of the Respondent No.4 state that the dispute between them is settled in terms of the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

¶20

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms. Undertakings given in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to this Court.

¶21

¶22

941-WP-9609-2023.doc

¶23

6. It is clarified that, as the Petitioner No.9 has not signed the Consent Terms, the same will not bind the Petitioner No.9. The Petitioner No.9 is granted liberty to file separate Writ Petition. All the contentions on merits as far as Petitioner No.9 is concerned are expressly kept open.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶25

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶26

Bajarang Pandurang Kumbhar and Ors. v. Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajarang Pandurang Kumbhar and Ors. v. Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vinayak Raghunath Sule (Since Decd.) through Lrs. Vs Sau. Sharada Krishna Chimne and Ors.

Dattatraya Ratnappa Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Ratnappa Chavan and Others Vs the Additional Collector, Kolhapur

Khadya Paya Vikretha Malak Sangh Sangli Vs Addl. Collector, Sangli at Sangli and Another

Vikram Auto Services and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prithviraj Sahebrao Jachak Vs State of Maharashtr Thr Dept of Co. Op and Ors.