Allowed

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade v. the State of Maharashtra through the Superintendent of Prison Nagpur Central Jail

Bombay HC27 Jun 2025WP/694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Builders challenged consumer forum orders imposing deposit conditions while releasing them on bail in execution proceedings. Holding the forums exceeded their powers under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, the High Court quashed the deposit conditions and allowed amounts deposited to be treated as part payment towards the decreetal dues.

What did the court decide?

Orders imposing deposit conditions quashed and set aside; deposits treated as part/full payment towards decreetal amounts; complainants permitted to withdraw amounts already deposited.

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6037

¶2

Judgment

¶3

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶4

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.694 OF 2024

¶7

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade
Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,
district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶8

:: V E R S U S ::

¶9

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶10

2. Yuvraj Tikaram Morghade,
aged 68 years, occupation – private,
r/o plot No.4, Bhujbal Layout, near
Triveni Apartment, Trimurti Nagar,
.
Nagpur. ….. Respondents

¶11

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶12

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.697 OF 2024

¶13

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade
Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,

¶14

.....2/-

¶15

Judgment

¶16

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶17

¶18

district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶19

:: V E R S U S ::

¶20

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶21

2. Vandana Babarao Kachare,
aged 48 years, occupation – private,
r/o plot No.23, Yashodanagar, Goodluck,
Society, Hingna Road, tahsil Hingna,
.
district Nagpur. ….. Respondents

¶22

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶23

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.703 OF 2024

¶24

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade
Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,
district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶25

:: V E R S U S ::

¶26

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶27

2. Vilas Shriram Tale,
aged 52 years, occupation – private,

¶28

.....3/-

¶29

Judgment

¶30

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶31

¶32

r/o plot No.27, Matoshree Nagar,
.
Hingna, Nagpur. ….. Respondents

¶33

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶34

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.704 OF 2024

¶35

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade
Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,
district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶36

:: V E R S U S ::

¶37

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶38

2. Priyanka Raju Mahajan,
aged 39 years, occupation – household,
r/o Yergaon, at post Sirasgaon,
Hinganghat, district Wardha.

¶39

3. Ram Raju Mahajan,
aged 16 years, occupation – student,
r/o Yergaon, at post Sirasgaon,
Hinganghat, district Wardha.

¶40

4. Shyam Raju Mahajan,
aged 14 years, occupation – student,
r/o Yergaon, at post Sirasgaon,

¶41

.....4/-

¶42

Judgment

¶43

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶44

¶45

.
Hinganghat, district Wardha. ….. Respondents

¶46

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Varun Kataria, Counsel for R-2.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶47

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.705 OF 2024

¶48

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade
Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,
district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶49

:: V E R S U S ::

¶50

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶51

2. Madhusudan Chintaman Hargode,
aged 56 years, occupation – private,
r/o Gomaji Ward, tahsil Hinganghat,
.
district Wardha. ….. Respondents

¶52

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Varun Kataria, Counsel for R-2.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶53

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.776 OF 2024

¶54

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade

¶55

.....5/-

¶56

Judgment

¶57

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶58

¶59

Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,
district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶60

:: V E R S U S ::

¶61

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶62

2. Puneshwar Narayan Tighare,
aged 55 years, occupation – private,
 r/o near airtel tower, Delanwadi,
.
Bramhpuri, district Chandrapur. ….. Respondents

¶63

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Varun Kataria, Counsel for R-2.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶64

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.821 OF 2024

¶65

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade,
aged 50 years, occupation business,
r/o proprietor of M/s.Bondade
Developers and Builders, office at Lane
No.22, Panchvati Park, tahsil Hingna,
district Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶66

:: V E R S U S ::

¶67

1. State of Maharashtra, through
the Superintendent of Prison,
Nagpur Central Jail, Nagpur.

¶68

.....6/-

¶69

Judgment

¶70

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶71

¶72

2. Smt.Pratibha Kishor Bhure, aged 40 years,
occupation – private, r/o plot No.55,
Shrinagar, Bobde Layout, Mahajanwadi,
Hingna Road, tahsil Hingna, district
.
Nagpur. ….. Respondents

¶73

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Varun Kataria, Counsel for R-2.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶74

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.860 OF 2024

¶75

Suresh Kondbaji Burrewar, aged 53
years, occupation – business, proprietor
of M/s.Gruhalaxmi Construction and Land
Developers Nagpur, office at Gruhalaxmi
Tower, near Chandralok building, central
Avenue Road, Nagpur. ….. Petitioner.

¶76

:: V E R S U S ::

¶77

1. Milind Govindrao Karmarkar, aged major,
occupation – nil, r/o Bhiwapur, Hanuman
Mandir, ward No.24, at post Babupeth,
tahsil and district Chandrapur.

¶78

2. Paresh Satyawan Kukudwar,
aged major, occupation – nil , r/o
Bhiwapur, Hanuman Mandir, ward No.
24, at post Babupeth, tahsil and district Chandrapur.

¶79

3. Gattu Harinath Chakravatrhy,
aged major, occupation – nil, r/o
Bhiwapur, Hanuman Mandir, ward No.

¶80

.....7/-

¶81

Judgment

¶82

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶83

¶84

24, at post Babupeth, tahsil and district
.
Chandrapur. ….. Respondents

¶85

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri A.K.Waghmare, Counsel for Respondents.
Shri M.J.Khan, Addl.P.P. for the State.

¶86

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.905 OF 2024

¶87

Nitesh @ Nitin Ramchandra, Dhakate,
aged 40 years, occupation business,
proprietor of M/s.Sai Vitsalaya Builder and
Developers, office at 13-14, Om Shri Sai
Nagar Layout, Khat Road, Bhandara. ….. Petitioner.

¶88

:: V E R S U S ::

¶89

1. Suhas Mahadeo Londhe, aged 46 years,
occupation – service, r/o at post Khumari,
tahsil Ramtek, district Nagpur.

¶90

2. Ramesh Shamrao Gabhne,

¶91

aged 58 years, occupation – service, r/o
at post Asgaay, taluka Pavni, district
Bhandara.

¶92

3. Balu Udaram Deshkar, aged 46 years,
occupation – contractor, r/o tilak ward,
Gandhi Chowk, Bhandara.

¶93

4. Prakash Umashankar Pande, aged 45
years, occupation business, r/o c/o
Vishwanath Kukde, LIC-21, MHADA
colony, khat road, Bhandara.

¶94

.....8/-

¶95

Judgment

¶96

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶97

¶98

5. Yadorao Laxman Meshram, aged 48 years,
occupation – service, r/o near old bus stop, c/o
Ashok Hude, tahsil Sadak Arjuni, district
.
Gondia. ….. Respondents

¶99

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶100

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.907 OF 2024

¶101

Nitesh @ Nitin Ramchandra Dhakate,
aged 40 years, occupation business,
proprietor of M/s.Sai Vatsalya Builder and
Developers, office at 13-14, Om Shri Sai
Nagar Layout, Khat Road, Bhandara. ….. Petitioner.

¶102

:: V E R S U S ::

¶103

1. Manmohan Vijaysingh Tomar, aged 43
years, occupation service, r/o c/o
Gunwant Tambekar, plot No.30, line no.
9, Pragati Colony, tahsil and district
Bhandara.

¶104

2. Hetal Mansukhbhai Sapriya, aged 53
years, occupation – business, r/o Takiya
Yard, tahsil and district Bhandara.

¶105

3. Ashish Vijaysingh Hanspal, aged 50 years,
occupation – service, r/o Bela, tahsil and
.
district Bhandara. ….. Respondents

¶106

Shri Amit Bhate, Counsel for Petitioners.
Shri Himanshu Khedikar, Counsel for Respondent No.1.

¶107

.....9/-

¶108

Judgment

¶109

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶110

¶111

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 19/06/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27/06/2025

¶112

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶113

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties. Rule . Heard finally by consent.

¶114

2. By these writ petitions, petitioners take exception
to order dated 2.5.2024 passed by learned Additional
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Nagpur in Execution Application Nos.18/16, 20/50,
19/155, 14/18, 17/62, 17/47, 17/48, and 19/156; order
dated 29.7.2024 passed by State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Circuit Bench,
Nagpur in Execution Application No.21/2017; order
dated 8.8.2024 passed by learned Additional District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhandara in
Execution Application No.22/43; and order dated

¶115

.....10/-

¶116

Judgment

¶117

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶118

¶119

30.7.2024 passed by learned Additional District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhandara in
Execution Application No.19/31 imposing condition of
depositing amounts while releasing them on bail.

¶120

The legality of imposing such condition has been
questioned under writ jurisdiction.

¶121

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that orders impugned are per se illegal and without

¶122

authority vested with the District Forum to pass such
orders. It is submitted that no proceeding as
contemplated under Section 27 of the Consumer
Protection Act is initiated against petitioners. The orders
to arrest have been passed in execution proceedings and
NBWs were issued against petitioners. By executing
NBWs, they were produced before the said Forum and
while releasing them on bail, condition was imposed to

¶123

.....11/-

¶124

Judgment

¶125

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶126

¶127

deposit amount Rs.1,60,000/- (in Cr.W.P.No.694/2024);
Rs.5,70,000/- (in Cr.W.P.No.698/2024); Rs.2,80,000/- (in

¶128

Cr. W.P. No.697/2024); Rs.3,75,000/- (in Cr. W.P.

¶129

No.703/2024); Rs.1,72,500/- (in Cr. W.P. No.704/2024);
Rs.1,37,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.705/2024); Rs.1,55,000/-
(in Cr. W.P. No.776/2024); Rs.3,90,000/- (in Cr. W.P.
No.82/2024); Rs.2,75,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.860/2024);
Rs.19,45,000/- (in Cr.W.P.No.905/2024); and
Rs.12,80,000/- (in Cr. W.P. No.907/2024).

¶130

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners
that such a condition cannot be imposed while releasing
petitioners on bail.

¶131

4.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respective respondents submitted that despite directions

¶132

given by the said Forum, petitioners have not deposited
amounts. Before the said Forum, petitioners shown their

¶133

.....12/-

¶134

Judgment

¶135

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶136

¶137

willingness to deposit amounts and, therefore, said
directions are given. One of petitioners i.e. Suresh
Kondbaji Burrewar gave an undertaking before the said
Forum that he is ready and willing to deposit the amount
and also ready to deposit total amount in all three
complaint cases and has undertaken to deposit balance
decreetal amount within one month from that day. Thus,
in view of undertakings given by petitioners, directions
were given to them to deposit amounts and, therefore, no
illegality is committed by the said Forum. In view of that,

¶138

writ petitions deserve to be dismissed being devoid of
merits.

¶139

5. Before adverting to issue involved and submissions made by learned counsel appearing for parties, few facts leading to filing of these petitions are required to be seen.

¶140

.....13/-

¶141

Judgment

¶142

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶143

¶144

6.The respondents filed consumer complaints against
petitioners who are builders and developers alleging
deficiency in service. The said complaints were allowed
partly by the said Forum. The petitioners failed to comply
with directions and, therefore, respondents filed
execution applications before the said Forum. The
petitioners appeared as NBWs were issued against them.
The said Forum was pleased to allow the said applications
and granted bail in favour of petitioners imposing
conditions that they shall deposit amounts as mentioned
above i.e. approximately 50% of the total financial
liability towards the decreetal amount.

¶145

7.The issue raised that the said Forum has no
authority to impose such condition and, therefore, the
orders directing to deposit amounts require to be quashed
and set aside.

¶146

.....14/-

¶147

Judgment

¶148

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶149

¶150

8.On careful consideration of record and submissions

¶151

advanced, in light of overall facts of the case, orders
impugned are passed by the said Forum and the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides remedies for
enforcement of orders passed by the said Forum.

¶152

9.For recovery of amount due from any person under
an order passed by the District Forum, the State
Commission or the National Commission, as the case
may, remedy is provided under Section 25(3) of the
Consumer Protection Act. Said Section reads as under:

¶153

“25(3). Where any amount is due from any person under
an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or
the National Commission, as the case may be, the person
entitled to the amount may make an application to the
District Forum, the State Commission or the National
Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum

¶154

.....15/-

¶155

Judgment

¶156

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶157

¶158

or the State Commission or the National Commission may
issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of
the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector

¶159

shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner
as arrears of land revenue."

¶160

Thus, if we consider powers of the District

¶161

Consumer Forum to enforce its orders to recover amount
due and payable to any person, then the District
Consumer Forum cannot issue warrant of arrest and
order to detain such person in prison in execution
proceeding filed for recovery of amount due under order
of the said Forum. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section
25 of the said Act, at the most the Forum can issue
certificate of recovery in favour of such person. The
process of recovery pursuant to such certificate to be
initiated by the Collector to whom such recovery

¶162

.....16/-

¶163

Judgment

¶164

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶165

¶166

certificate is issued to recover the amount so specified in
certificate by adopting the procedure prescribed for
recovery of arrears of land revenue. Under Section 25 of
the Consumer Protection Act, it is no where provided for
arrest and detention of person in prison towards recovery
of amount due under orders of Forum.

¶167

Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act provides for penalties to be imposed where the person against whom the complaint is made fails or omits to comply with the order made by District Forum/State Commission/National Commission. The said Section

¶168

reads as under :-

¶169

"27. Penalties-(1) Where a trader or a person
against whom a complaint is made or the
complainant fails or omits to comply with any
order made by the District Forum, the State
Commission or the National Commission, as the

¶170

.....17/-

¶171

Judgment

¶172

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶173

¶174

case may be, such trader or person or complainant
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than one month but which
may extend to three years, or with fine which shall
not be less than two thousand rupees but which
may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;

¶175

(2) Notwithstanding, anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State
Commission or the National Commission, as the
case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

¶176

(3) All offences under this Act may be tried
summarily by the District Forum or the State
Commission or the National Commission, as the
case may be."

¶177

.....18/-

¶178

Judgment

¶179

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶180

¶181

When the proceeding under Section 27 of the said Act is filed, the district forum has to find out whether opponent/accused has obeyed the orders in question and if it found that the orders are not obeyed, the district forum has to take cognizance under Section 190 of CrPC and issue summons to the opponent/ accused. After opponent/accused appears, he shall obtain bail and thereafter on the same day or on the next day he shall explain gist of the accusations to him and his plea shall be recorded. If he pleads guilty, he can proceed for imposition of the punishment as provided under section 27(1) of the Act, but if he denies the guilt, further trial has to be taken by the district forum namely to record

¶182

statement of the officer/complainant for cross
examination of the other side. If there are other
witnesses of the complainant, they can offer of the other
side and thereafter examine the accused under section

¶183

.....19/-

¶184

Judgment

¶185

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶186

¶187

313 of the CrPC and by giving him an opportunity to
examine the witnesses, in support of his defence and after
hearing both the sides, the order of punishment shall be
passed. This is the procedure contemplated under

¶188

Section 27 of the Act.

¶189

Thus bare reading of provisions Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act reflects that only after conducting the proceeding and the said Section, if the District Consumer Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, reaches to the conclusion that the person has failed or omitted to comply with the order, then depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the defence if any taken by such person in such proceeding, the forum can impose penalty/punishment as provided under Section 27 of the said Act.

¶190

.....20/-

¶191

Judgment

¶192

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶193

¶194

Perusal of orders reflects that impugned orders have been passed in an execution proceedings filed for recovery of amount due against the petitioners. In absence of any proceeding registered and initiated under Section 27 of the said Act, the District Consumer Forum should not have passed such orders and imposed the costs in each proceeding while releasing the petitioners on bail.

¶195

As far as petitioner Nitesh @ Nitin Ramchandra, Dhakate is concerned, he himself has filed an application before the forum showing his willingness to deposit the amount by filing application on 8.10.2024 i.e. after passing of the order dated 2.5.2024.

¶196

Petitioner Suresh Kondbaji Burrewar, has also

¶197

given undertaking before the State Commission showing

¶198

.....21/-

¶199

Judgment

¶200

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶201

¶202

his willingness to deposit the amount and already paid
the part payment.

¶203

However, question before the court is that while
passing orders to release the petitioners on bail, whether
the said Forum appears to have exceeded its authority
and directed to impose condition to pay the amount to
the complainant. While releasing the person on bail, the
Court is expected to confine the scope of order to release
the petitioners on such terms and conditions, which the
Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case to ensure the availability of accused for
conduct of trial against them. The imposition of costs
and payment to the complainants do not fall within the
ambit of exercise of powers to release the person on bail.

¶204

The above said aspect has been dealt with by this court at Aurangabad Bench in Criminal Application

¶205

.....22/-

¶206

Judgment

¶207

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶208

¶209

No.3390/2018 and other connected matters decided on
9.7.2019 and Criminal Writ Petition No.803/2021

¶210

decided on 23.12.2021 and the condition imposed was
quashed and set aside.

¶211

The Single Bench of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No.552/2024 by referring judgment in the case of Abhay Narayan Raje vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors, Criminal Application No.3390/2013 decided on 9.7.2019 has considered the scope of the provisions of

¶212

Sections 25 and 27 of the said Act and held that the
condition similar to one impose in case of this petition
cannot be imposed while deciding the bail applications.
Even, if it is presumed that order has been passed in
exercise of powers conferred upon the judicial Magistrate
as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the
said Act, still the order imposing the costs and payment

¶213

.....23/-

¶214

Judgment

¶215

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶216

¶217

thereof to the complainants falls beyond the scope of
exercise of powers under the said provisions of law and,
therefore, the order of imposition of costs and payments
unsustainable in law.

¶218

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the amounts deposited by some of petitioners can be treated as part compliance of orders passed by the said Forum and the same be adjusted towards recovery of the amounts due and payable in terms of the order passed by the said Forum. In case, the petitioners have deposited the amounts of costs and the same have been paid to the respective complainants, the same shall be treated as part or full payment, as the case may be, in cases of individual complainant to the extent of amounts withdrawn. The petitioners who have deposited the amounts as part payment are not entitled for the refund of the same.

¶219

.....24/-

¶220

Judgment

¶221

418 wp694; 697; 698; 703; 704; 705; 776; 821; 860; 905, and 907.24

¶222

¶223

In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the condition imposed is unsustainable in law, the writ petition deserve to be allowed and the same are allowed. The orders impugned imposing the condition to deposit the amounts are quashed and set aside.

¶224

Petitions stand disposed of .

¶225

( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. )

¶226

The original complainants are permitted to

¶227

withdraw amounts already deposited by petitioners before

¶228

the said Forum on due identification and verification.

¶229

( URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. )

¶230

!! BrWankhede !!

¶231

...../-

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade v. the State of Maharashtra through the Superintendent of Prison Nagpur Central Jail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandu Gopalrao Bondade v. the State of Maharashtra through the Superintendent of Prison Nagpur Central Jail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay S/O Ramaji Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Koradi, Nagpur City, Nagpur

Lalit Ganesh Mundhare vs Gajanan Suryabhan Navgahre

Mayur S/O Manik Gadrel vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Paratwada, Tah. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati

Balem Nanaji @ Nani S/O Peddakaapu Balem Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Pardi, Nagpur

Aditya S/O Anursingh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Talegaon (Sp), Tah. Ashti, Dist. Wardha and Anr.

Pratap S/O Pralhadrao Chavhan Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Asegaon Purna, Dist. Amravati and Anr.