Disposed¶21

Dr Satish D Bhoir (Prop /Owner of Siddhi Intensive Care and Dialysis Center ) v. Mahendra D Pagare

Bombay HC18 Mar 2025WP/616/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consumer dispute; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai; compensation awarded by order dated 23 December 2016; conditional hearing subject to deposit of balance amount with entire interest within ten days; dismissal of petition in default without further reference; stay of execution till adjourned date; WP 616 of 2025; Bombay High Court; interim order dated 18 March 2025; adjourned to 1 April 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: proceedings adjourned to 1 April 2025 with execution of the State Commission's order stayed till the adjourned date; petition to be heard upon deposit of the balance awarded amount with entire interest within ten days, failing which it shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. ¶21

Dr Satish D Bhoir (Prop /Owner of Siddhi Intensive Care and Dialysis Center ) vs Mahendra D Pagare — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be heard only upon the petitioner depositing with the State Commission the balance amount of the compensation awarded by the State Commission's order dated 23 December 2016, together with the entire interest thereon.

¶14

Court's answer

Proceedings are adjourned to 1 April 2025 to enable the petitioner to make the directed deposit within ten days.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner must deposit with the State Commission the balance amount along with the entire interest on the total compensation awarded by the State Commission's order dated 23 December 2016, within ten days.

¶14

Key takeaways

Upon such compliance the Court shall hear the petition, and the proof of deposit is to be filed with the Registry.ratio¶16
If the balance amount along with interest is not deposited as directed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.ratio¶17
In view of the aforesaid orders, execution of the order shall remain stayed till the adjourned date of hearing.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 616 of 2025, Dr. Satish D. Bhoir v. Shri. Mahendra D. Pagare, order dated 18 March 2025: Proceedings adjourned to 1 April 2025, directing the petitioner to deposit with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the balance amount of the compensation awarded by the State Commission's order dated 23 December 2016, together with the entire interest, within ten days; on compliance the petition is to be heard and proof of deposit filed with the Registry; in default, the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Execution of the order shall remain stayed till the adjourned date of hearing; the respondent's reply affidavit, if any, to be placed on record by the adjourned date.

Dr Satish D Bhoir (Prop /Owner of Siddhi Intensive Care and Dialysis Center ) v. Mahendra D Pagare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Satish D Bhoir (Prop /Owner of Siddhi Intensive Care and Dialysis Center ) v. Mahendra D Pagare

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

Vikas Education Society, Chopadi and Anr. vs the Grampanchayat Chopadi Tal Sangola Dist. Solapur Thr Sarpancha and Ors.

Chaitali Pradeep Chaudhari Alias Chaitali M. Joshi vs the Official Liquidator Mumbai and Anr.

Hon. Executive Engineer Pwd. vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr.

High Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Lakdawala Developers Private Limited vs High Court on Its Own Motion

A.H. Wadia Trust vs High Court on Its Own Motion and 7 Ors.