Allowed

Avinash Tukaram Ingale v. the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Thr Lift Irrigation Division,Osmanabad and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2024CA/515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant in a land acquisition appeal sought modification of an earlier order permitting partial withdrawal of compensation against a bank guarantee. The court allowed the application, permitting withdrawal of the remaining 25% with accrued interest on furnishing solvent surety/security, consistent with similar claimants' applications already allowed.

What did the court decide?

Clause II modified: applicant may withdraw remaining 25% of amount with accrued interest on furnishing solvent surety/security to the satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial).

Avinash Tukaram Ingale Vs the Executive Engineer, Minor… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

ca516.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2017 Vyankat Hariba Dharav .. Applicant Versus The Executive Engineer, & others .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. V. Hange, AGP for the State. Mr. R. C. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17^th JANUARY, 2024.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

1. Heard.

¶9

This application is filed with a prayer to modify clause II of the operative order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 4498/2018, dated 3^rd April, 2018. This Court had allowed the application for withdrawal on furnishing undertaking, 25% amount was allowed to be withdrawn on furnishing bank guarantee of Nationalised bank. The applicant/original claimant expresses that now he is required to deposit 100% amount of the bank guarantee and is also required to pay charges above that amount. He further submits that because of this condition, though applicant has

¶10

¶11

ca516.24.odt

¶12

withdrawn 50% of the amount, she could not withdraw further 25% of the amount. A prayer is therefore made that condition in clause II be modified. Applicant is ready to furnish solvent surety/security for the said amount.

¶13

Learned counsel Mr. R. C. Patil opposes the said prayer submitting that the Appellate Court while passing the order considered the interest of both the parties. The interest of the acquiring body also needs to be considered and to secure the amount it is necessary to furnish the bank guarantee.

¶14

Applications filed by similarly placed claimants in the same acquisition proceeding for modification of the order have been allowed by this Court. Hence, this Court finds no reason or justification to take any different view. Considering the submissions, this Court finds that interest of the acquiring body can be taken care by directing the applicant to furnish solvent surety/security in this Court for the said amount. Hence, the following order :

¶15

ORDER

¶16

i) Civil application is allowed.

¶17

ca516.24.odt

¶18

ii) Clause II of the operative order is thus modified as below :

¶19

“Rest of 25% amount may be allowed to be withdrawn by applicant on furnishing solvent surety/security to the satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court along with accrued interest, if any.”

¶20

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶21

dyb

Avinash Tukaram Ingale v. the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Thr Lift Irrigation Division,Osmanabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Tukaram Ingale v. the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Thr Lift Irrigation Division,Osmanabad and Ors.

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

Kuldeepsing Oil and Dal Mills Vs Narayandas Mohanlal

Ms Yash Enterprises a Proprietorship Firm through Its Proprietor Faqruddin Hatimbhai Rangwala Vs Ms Kuber Steel Traders a Partnership Firm Under the Indian Partnership Act 1932 Jalna

Ranjana Bajirao Kakad and Anr. Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr.

Nana Kerba Dhangar (Died) Thr Lrs. Chandar Namdeo Tigade @ Dhangar Vs the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Thr Lift Irrigation Division,Osmanabad and Ors.

Manik Atmaram Borade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Osmanabad and Ors.

Bishanlal Sangramal Sharma Died through His Legal Hiers Tarabai Bishalal Sharma and Others Vs Arun Pruthviraj Sharma and Others