Disposed¶21

V.I.D.C., Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Project Construction Division, Amravati v. Ramesh Shioramji Rane and Others

Bombay HC12 Jun 2026CAF/778/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of 36 days in civil application; withdrawal of principal amount deposited by appellant in pending First Appeal; 75% of Rs.2,88,408/- with accrued interest permitted to applicants/claimants on usual undertaking; V.I.D.C. through its Executive Engineer v. Ramesh Shioramji Rane and others; First Appeal ST. No.3958 of 2025; Nagpur Bench; single-judge order; applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 36 days condoned in Civil Application (CAF) No.778 of 2026; in Civil Application (CAF) No.2004 of 2026, the applicants/claimants permitted to withdraw 75% of the amount deposited in Court by the appellant with accrued interest thereon on furnishing usual undertaking; both applications disposed of. ¶21

V.I.D.C., Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Project Construction Division, Amravati vs Ramesh Shioramji Rane and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 36 days should be condoned in Civil Application (CAF) No.778 of 2026, for the reasons stated in the application. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The delay of 36 days is condoned for the reasons stated in the application and the argument advanced by the applicant, despite opposition by learned counsel for the respondents; the application (CAF No.778 of 2026) is disposed of.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The application (CAF No.2004 of 2026) is allowed: the applicants/claimants are permitted to withdraw 75% of the amount deposited in the Court by the appellant, along with interest accrued thereon, on furnishing usual undertaking.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Pravin S. Patil, J.), 12 June 2026, in Civil Applications arising out of First Appeal ST. No.3958 of 2025 (V.I.D.C. through its Executive Engineer v. Ramesh Shioramji Rane and others): (i) Civil Application (CAF) No.778 of 2026 — notwithstanding opposition by learned counsel for the respondents, the delay of 36 days was condoned for the reasons stated in the application and the argument advanced by the applicant; application disposed of. (ii) Civil Application (CAF) No.2004 of 2026 — the applicant sought withdrawal of the principal amount of Rs.2,88,408/- deposited by the appellant with accrued interest; learned counsel for the applicant stated that withdrawal of the entire amount would leave nothing surviving in the matter, whereupon the Court permitted the applicants/claimants to withdraw 75% of the amount deposited in Court by the appellant along with interest accrued thereon, on furnishing the usual undertaking; application allowed and disposed of.

¶1

38-caf778.26.odt 1/2

¶2

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

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) No.778 OF 2026 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL ST. No.3958 OF 2025

¶5

(V.I.D.C. through its Executive Engineer Vs. Ramesh Shioramji Rane and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶8

Ms. Shikha Vastani h/f. Mr. U.A. Gosavi, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Abhijeet Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos.3(a) to 3(d). Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶9

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 12th JUNE, 2026.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The applicant has vehemently argued the matter and insisted that for the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 36 days be condoned.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the same. However, for the reasons stated in the application and the argument advanced by the applicant, delay of 36 days is condoned.

¶13

The application is disposed of.

¶14

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) No.2004 OF 2026.

¶15

By this application, the applicant is seeking withdrawal of principal amount deposited by the appellant before this Court.

¶16

Perusal of the application shows that the applicant is seeking to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,88,408/- along with

¶17

38-caf778.26.odt 2/2

¶18

accrued interest thereon.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant states that if entire amount is withdrawn then nothing will survives in the matter and, therefore, instead of 100%, 75% amount can be permitted to be withdrawn.

¶20

Hence, for the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

¶21

The applicants/claimants are permitted to withdraw 75% of the amount deposited in the Court by appellant along with interest accrued thereon on furnishing usual undertaking. 6. The application is disposed of.

¶22

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)

¶23

Wadode

¶24

Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/06/2026 17:16:25

V.I.D.C., Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Project Construction Division, Amravati v. Ramesh Shioramji Rane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I.D.C., Thr. Its Executive Engineer, Project Construction Division, Amravati v. Ramesh Shioramji Rane 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

Vijay Bhawanticharan Verma vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso, Ps, Gittikhadan, Nagpur

Sahadeo Shankarrao Palaspagar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Yevada, Tq. Daryapur Dist. Amravati

Smt. Saraswati Wd/O Shankarrao Bisandre vs Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway, C.S.T. Mumbai

Sanjay S/O Anandrao Dhapodkar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Kapil Nagar, Police Station, Dist. Nagpur

Sheikh Salim Sheikh Rasul and Others vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur

Shahzad Abid Ali Sayyad vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Rajura Dist Chandrapur