Disposed¶12

M/S Kulkarni and Sons, Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Jayant Madhukar Kulkarni v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, New Delhi and Others

Bombay HC16 Apr 2025WP/4017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 4017 of 2024 Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Kulkarni and Sons v Union of India; interim order dated 17.04.2025; excess work Rs.61.96 Lakhs admitted; deposit in Court directed by 24.04.2025; approval for extra work sole liability of respondent Nos.4-6, not respondent No.2; PFMS Portal funds Rs.1.54 Crore; enquiry/recovery Rs.24,40,141 against petitioner; next listing 25.04.2025; bench Gharote and Mantri JJ.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction to respondent Nos.4 to 6 to deposit Rs.61.96 Lakhs in Court by 24/04/2025; matter listed for further directions on 25/04/2025. ¶12

M/S Kulkarni and Sons, Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Jayant Madhukar Kulkarni vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, New Delhi and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

ORDER DATED 17/04/2025 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4017 OF 2024

¶4

( M/s Kulkarni and Sons vs. Union of India and others )

¶5

Mr. K.S.Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.S.Deshpande, DSGI for respondent No.1 and 2. Ms.T.H.Khan,AGP for respondent No.3. Mr. G.A.Kunte, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶6

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : APRIL 17, 2025

¶7

Heard Mr.Kunte, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. He has tendered across the bar an affidavit dated 17/04/2025, on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 6, wherein it is not disputed that excess work to the tune of Rs.61.96 Lakhs was got done from the petitioner. The liability to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner is also not disputed. What is disputed that the amount is payable from a sum of Rs.1.54 Crore, lying in the Public Finance Management System Portal, which is created for the implementation of the project. It is also contended that since an enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner regarding an amount of Rs.24,40,141/- the same would be recoverable from the petitioner. It is also contended that as and when the respondent No.2 grants approval, the aforesaid payment would be made.

¶8

We have yesterday recorded a statement of Mr.Deshpande, learned DSGI to the effect that the respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the extra work got done by the KOLHE

¶9

ORDER DATED 17/04/2025 2

¶10

respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the petitioner. In light of that statement, the liability to obtain approval for the extra work would solely rest with respondent Nos.4 to 6 and would be an issue between respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The petitioner has nothing to do with the approval.

¶11

Since there is no dispute that work to the extent of sum of Rs.61.96 Lakhs has been got done by respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the petitioner, as is spelt out from para 9 of the affidavit dated 17/04/2025, we direct the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to deposit the aforesaid amount in this court by 24/04/2025.

¶12

List the matter for further direction on 25/04/2025

¶13

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶14

KOLHE

¶15

Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/04/2025 10:56:03

M/S Kulkarni and Sons, Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Jayant Madhukar Kulkarni v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kulkarni and Sons, Thr. Sole Proprietor, Mr. Jayant Madhukar Kulkarni v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, New Delhi and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubhanshu S/O Nandu Ashtankar and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Avinash S/O Chhatrapal Bopche vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi and Ors.

Ku. Swati Ratnakarrao Hantodkar vs Zilla Parishad, Amravati, Thr. Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha, Mangrulpir, Thr. Secretary, Ashok R. Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.

Yogeshwar Laxman Kapkar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Kundlik S/O Maniram Thawari Vs Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Wani, Thr. Chairman/ Secretary and Ors.