Allowed¶12

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Thr. Its Chief Engineer, Mumbai v. Dhaneshwar S/O Adkuji Navghare

Bombay HC8 May 2025WP/1347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; CAW No.1790/2025 in W.P. No.1347/2024 (D); Judge Prafulla S. Khubalkar; decided 15-09-2025. Withdrawal of amount deposited during pendency of writ petition concerning overtime wages of employees; entitlement earlier decided by Industrial Court; petition finally decided 08-05-2025; no objection by petitioners' counsel A.D. Mohgaonkar; respondent Dhaneshwar (counsel R.B. Khan) allowed to withdraw Rs.80,211/- with accrued interest; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondent/employee permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.80,211/- deposited by the petitioners, with interest accrued thereon; application disposed of. ¶12

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Thr. Its Chief Engineer, Mumbai Vs Dhaneshwar S/O Adkuji Navghare — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 caw1790.25.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAW No.1790/2025 in Writ Petition No.1347/2024 (D) Maharashtra State Power General Company Ltd and others V Dhaneshwar

¶3

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

- - - - ---------------------------- Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. R.B. Khan, Advocate for respondent.

¶6

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 15-09-2025.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

2.This is an application for withdrawal of the amount

¶10

deposited by the petitioners during the pendency of the petition. It is
pointed out that the petition is finally decided by judgment dated
08-05-2025 and the amount which is deposited is towards the overtime
wages of the employees. It is pointed out that the entitlement was
decided by the Industrial Court and the order passed by the Industrial
Court was subject matter of challenge in the petition. In view of the
decision in the petition, the respondent/employee seeks withdrawal of
the amount.

¶11

3.Learned Counsel for the original petitioners has no objection
for withdrawal.

¶12

4.In view of this, application is allowed. The respondent is
allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.80,211/-with interest accrued
thereon.

¶13

5.Application is disposed of.

¶14

 (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

¶15

2 caw1790.25.odt

¶16

Deshmukh

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Thr. Its Chief Engineer, Mumbai v. Dhaneshwar S/O Adkuji Navghare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Thr. Its Chief Engineer, Mumbai v. Dhaneshwar S/O Adkuji Navghare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau Pragati Parag Choudhari Vs Shri Parag Rameshrao Choudhari

M/S Bansal and Company, Gwalior through Its Partner, Prem Narayan Bansal S/O Late Shri M.I. Bansal Vs Union of India through Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

Ramesh S/O Arjunrao Sonkusale and Others Vs Chandralant S/O Nathuji Sonjusale

Rahul S/O Vasantrao Arakhaarao vs Honble Minister of Village Development, Mumbai and Others

Tejaswini W/O Vinay Virkhare (Ku. Tejaswini D/O Umesh Tonde) Vs Vinay S/O Pramod Virkhare

Zilla Parishad, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Another vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale