Allowed

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors. v. the General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation

Bombay HC2 May 2024IA/8191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the High Court of Bombay allowed applicants to withdraw 50% of deposited compensation. The court noted the deceased was the sole earning member and applicants had no income, postponing the appellant's objections regarding negligence and income assessment to the final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Applicants allowed to withdraw 50% of deposited amount along with accrued interest upon furnishing a usual undertaking.

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Shubhada S Kadam 31-ia-8191-2024-fast-7794-2024 (withdrawal).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8191 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 7794 OF 2024

¶6

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and ors.	… Applicants
In the matter of :
The General Manager Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation	… Appellant
versus
Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and ors.	…. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Amol Gatne i/b. Ms. Swati Uday Mehta, Advocate for Applicants/ Claimants.

¶8

Ms. Karishma Jhaveri i/b. Navdeep Vora and Associates, Advocates for the Appellant.

¶9

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 2^nd MAY, 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for appellant-Corporation.

¶13

By this application, the applicants are seeking withdrawal of

¶14

the amount. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased was the sole earning member of the applicants’ family. The applicants have no source of income, they need the amount for their daily

¶15

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2024.05.03 10:21:55 +0530

¶16

expenses. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶17

1/2

¶18

Shubhada S Kadam 31-ia-8191-2024-fast-7794-2024 (withdrawal).doc

¶19

Learned counsel for appellant – Corporation strongly objected to allow the application on the ground that the Tribunal has considered yearly income of the deceased on higher side and there was negligence of the deceased in the said accident. Hence, requested to reject the application.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel. The deceased was the sole earning member of the applicants’ family. The applicants need the amount for their daily expenses. The applicants have no source of income. The grounds raised by the appellant-Corporation can be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The application is allowed.

¶23

The applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% amount along with accrued interest therein, out of the deposited amount, on furnishing usual undertaking.

¶24

The application is disposed of.

¶25

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶26

2/2

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors. v. the General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabra Nesha Ainul Ansari and Ors. v. the General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Corporation

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

Pratibha Laxman Patil and Anr. Vs Jarnailsing Shingarasingh and Anr.

M/S. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohan Bapuso Kshirsagar and Anr.

The New Inida Insurance Company Limited Vs Mr.Mohan Rajaram Raut and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Shobha Tanaji @ Tayapa Hajare and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ronak Sunil Murarka and Ors.

National Insurance Company Limited. Vs Shri. Prakash Soudagar Godage (Minor through His Grand Mother Applicant NO.3 and Others.