Dismissed¶15

Umesh S/O Hanumantrao Karmore v. Western Coal Fields Ltd. Nagpur through Chief General Manager and Others

Bombay HC21 Nov 2025WP/4296/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; decision dated 21.11.2025. Keywords: Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act 1957; Special Tribunal Nagpur; Compensation Case No.69 of 2015; want of jurisdiction; agreement dated 15.05.2013 not forwarded; Western Coal Fields Ltd.; writ petition dismissed; alternate and equally efficacious remedy. No precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to avail an alternate and equally efficacious remedy as available under the law. ¶15

Umesh S/O Hanumantrao Karmore Vs Western Coal Fields Ltd. Nagpur through Chief General Manager and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:12764

¶2

34 WP-4296-2019

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4296 OF 2019

¶6

[Shri Umesh S/o. Hanumantrao Karmore ..Vs.. Western Coal Fields Ltd., and Others]

¶7

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

¶8

Mr H. N. Bhondge, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr A. Kuradkar, Adv. h/f Ms U. A. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr K. Agrawal, Adv. h/f Mr J. B. Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 21st N OVEMBER, 2025.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Compensation Case No.69 of 2015 by the Special Tribunal Nagpur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

¶12

The present petitioner filed an application before the Special Tribunal pointing out that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents dated 15.05.2013, which was not forwarded by the respondents. The Tribunal, while considering the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, recorded a finding that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute. It was observed that the applicant, i.e., the petitioner, must approach the Competent Court, and therefore, the application was rejected for want of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for

¶13

34 WP-4296-2019

¶14

¶15

the petitioner has not demonstrated that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Act referred supra. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Compensation Case No.69 of 2015 by the Special Tribunal, Nagpur. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶16

The petitioner is at liberty to avail an alternate and equally efficacious remedy as available under the law.

¶17

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶18

TAMBE

Umesh S/O Hanumantrao Karmore v. Western Coal Fields Ltd. Nagpur through Chief General Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh S/O Hanumantrao Karmore v. Western Coal Fields Ltd. Nagpur through Chief General Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Piraji Ingole Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Prakash S/O Shaligram Kadu Vs Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha through Its Secretary, Ku. Priya Ramesh Mankar and Ors.

Pushpa Bhimrao Naik Vs Shailesh Navale, Regional Dairy Development Officer, Nagpur

Madhav Laxmanrao Wankhede vs the Secretary Marathwada Shikshan Sanstha and Others

Anil Keshaorao Gotmare vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., through Its Manager, Nagpur and Another

Yogeshwari D/O Arunrao Paralikar Vs State Information Commissioner, Amravati