Ganu Nathu Bhopi v. Union Of India Through Central Railway, Executive Engineer (Development)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1388 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2020 Ram Vitthal Patil Ram Vitthal Patil & Anr.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1389 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2020 Narayan Kalya Patil Narayan Kalya Patil & Anr.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1390 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2020 Ganubai Nathu Bhopi Ganubai Nathu Bhopi & Anr.
Digitally signed by SANSKRUTI A THAKUR Date:
2021.10.21 15:09:03 +0530 1 / 6 SANSKRUTI A THAKUR
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1391 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2020 Haribhau Budhaji Patil & Ors.
...Applicant Budhaji Sitaram Patil (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
1. Smt.Lakshmibai Budhaji Patil (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs a. Shri Haribhau Budhaji Patil & Ors.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1392 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2020 Smt.Lakshmibai Ragho Shendre & Ors.
Shri Ragho Nama Shendre (deceased) Through legal heirs, a. Smt.Lakshmibai Ragho Shendre & Ors.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1393 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2020 Shri Sunil Mahadeo Pawar & Ors.
2 / 6
Mahadeo Budhaji Pawar (deceased) through legal heirs a. Shri Sunil Mahadeo Pawar & Ors.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1394 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2020 Shri Balkrishna Mahadeo Patil & Ors.
Anandibai Mahadeo (deceased) through legal heirs a. Shri Balkrishna Mahadeo Patil & Ors.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1395 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2020 Sadashiv Kavlya Pawar Sadashiv Kavlya Pawar & Anr.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1396 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2020 Shri Pandurang Bapu Patil 3 / 6
Shri Pandurang Bapu Patil & Anr.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1397 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2020 Shri Balaram Bhurya Shendre Shri Balaram Bhurya Shendre& Anr.
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1398 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2020 Madhukar Kanu Pawar & Anr.
Shri Kanu Bapu Pawar (deceased) though legal heirs Madhukar Kanu Pawar & Anr.
...Respondents
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2169 OF 2020 FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2020 Anusaya Namdev Patil & Ors.
4 / 6
Shri Kashinath Sitaram Patil (deceased) through legal heirs
1. Shri Namdev Sitaram Patil (decased) through legal heirs Anusaya Namdev Patil & Ors.
Ms.Sapana Rachure with Manjit Thakur for Applicants in all applications. Mr.T.J. Pandian with Prachi Shah for Appellant. CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 11 OCTOBER 2021 P.C. :
.
By the aforesaid applications, modification is sought of the order dated 20 December 2019. By the said order, two contingencies were contemplated by my predecessor (Justice R.D. Dhanuka); one being withdrawal of the 50% amount deposited by the Appellant with the concerned reference court on furnishing an undertaking to the effect that in case of the appeal being allowed, the claimants would return the amount with interest as the court deem only after filing of undertaking. The court made it clear that the amount aforesaid would be withdrawn only after filing of such an undertaking.
The second contingency contemplated was the Respondents were permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the Appellant, but this was subject to the stipulation that the withdrawal would be conditional on furnishing bank guarantee of a Nationalized Bank in the reference court which shall include interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount which shall be withdrawn by the Applicants. The bank guarantee was directed to be kept alive for five years and thereafter, for a like period during the pendency of the appeal.
2.
Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, who seek modification of the order on the ground that in some identical appeals, some persons from the village were permitted to withdraw 60% amount on furnishing an undertaking and 40% were permitted to furnish bank guarantee of a Nationalized Bank. That can be no reason for modification of the order as this court, on deliberating the issue and hearing Counsel for the Applicants and Respondents, deemed it appropriate to pass such an order. It do not find any illegality or perversity merely because in some other set of applications, it was otherwise.
3.
The Applications are, therefore, rejected.
4.
Needless to state that the time-frame prescribed in the order, of which modification is sought, since it has expired, stands extended and will be counted taking the order passed today as starting point. (SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) 6 / 6