Mrs. Sheela Sushilkumar Madhumal v. State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Pune And ORS

by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2022.10.21 14:00:52 +0530 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN 1 (24) wp-8608.22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8608 OF 2022 Mrs. Sheela Sushilkumar Madhumal : Petitioner.

Versus

State of Maharashtra and ors.

: Respondents.

------- Mr. Nitesh S Nevshe for Petitioner.

Smt. S D Vyas, "B" Panel Counsel for Respondent/State. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Rajesh Kothari and Mr. Girish Parmar for Respondent No.3.

Mr. Siddharth Madhumal on behalf of Petitioners present. Mr. Deepak Deshpande - CEO of Respondent No.3 present. ------- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & A. S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATE : 19th OCTOBER 2022 P.C.

Parties have entered into a settlement and tendered minutes of order dated 19th October 2022. The minutes of order is signed by Mr. Siddharth Madhumal - son of Petitioner, who states, he has authority to sign the minutes of order. Mr. Siddharath Madhumal knows English language as he conversed with the Court in English. The figure of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs only) in clause 3(c) is written in the handwriting of Mr. Nevshe for Petitioner, after consulting with Mr.Siddharath Madhumal. Even the date 31st December 1/4

2 (24) wp-8608.22.doc 2022 written in the margin next to clause (f) of para-3 is also written in the handwriting of Mr.Nevshe for Petitioner, after consulting with Mr. Siddharath Madhumal.

On behalf of Respondent No.3 Mr. Deepak Deshpande - CEO of Respondent No.3, has signed the minutes of order. The respective advocates have also signed. The minutes of order is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. For the ease of reference the minutes of order is scanned and reproduced herein below :- 2/4

3 (24) wp-8608.22.doc 3/4

4 (24) wp-8608.22.doc The Statements contained in the order in terms of minutes of order are accepted as undertakings to this Court. We clarify that if the sale of said property does not take place for two attempts, Respondent No.3 is at liberty to fix reserve price as it deems fit as per its Rules and Regulations.

Petition disposed. No order as to costs.

(A. S. DOCTOR, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 4/4