Sunil Shahuraj Gund And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS
1 914 to 918 ca 6659-21+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 914 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6659 OF 2021 IN FAST/3908/2020 WITH CA/6657/2021 IN FAST/3922/2020 WITH CA/6655/2021 IN FAST/3916/2020 WITH CA/6661/2021 IN FAST/3911/2020 WITH CA/6662/2021 IN FAST/3918/2020 SRIDEVI SURYAKANT SHIRAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...
AND 915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6677 OF 2021 IN FAST/3951/2020 KISAN MADHAV GUND (DIED) THR LRS SUBHASH KISANRAO GUND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...
AND 916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6682 OF 2021 IN FAST/4242/2020 WITH CA/6680/2021 IN FAST/4244/2020 WITH CA/6679/2021 IN FAST/3947/2020 RAJENDRA VYANKATRAO GUND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...
AND 917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6694 OF 2021 IN FAST/3970/2020 WITH CA/6698/2021 IN FAST/4125/2020 WITH CA/6696/2021 IN FAST/4123/2020 BALAJI VISHWANATH BHOSALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...
AND 918 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6750 OF 2021 IN FAST/3826/2020 WITH CA/6751/2021 IN FAST/4121/2020 WITH CA/6759/2021 IN FAST/4105/2020 WITH CA/6755/2021 IN
2 914 to 918 ca 6659-21+ FAST/4107/2020 WITH CA/6761/2021 IN FAST/4113/2020 WITH CA/6765/2021 IN FAST/4110/2020 WITH CA/6766/2021 IN FAST/4101/2020 WITH CA/6756/2021 IN FAST/4117/2020 WITH CA/6758/2021 IN FAST/4119/2020 WITH CA/6753/2021 IN FAST/4103/2020 WITH CA/6762/2021 IN FAST/4096/2020 GANESH YESHWANT GUND
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...
Mr. B. K. Pawar, Advocate holding for Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, Mr. S. R. Yadav, Mr. S. N. Kulkarni. Mr. A. B. Chate and Mr. P. M. Kulkarni, AGPs for respondent-State in respective applications.
Mr. S. D. Dhongade, Mr. S. G. Sangale and Mr. Prashant Shinde Advocates for the Acquiring Body in respective matters. ....
CORAM :
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.
DATED : 11/11/2022.
P. C. :
1.
Heard rival submissions.
2.
All these applications are fled by the respective applicants for condonation of delay periods as mentioned in the applications. The delay appears to be caused due to fnancial crisis of the applicants. The learned respective counsel of the acquiring body as well as the learned AGP strongly opposed the applications on the ground that delay is not properly explained.
3.
However, considering the statutory right of the applicants, the respective delay periods as mentioned in these applications stand condoned subject to condition that the applicants shall not claim
3 914 to 918 ca 6659-21+ any interest for the aforesaid delay periods. The appeals be placed for admission after removal of offce objections, if any. The copy of this order be kept with the appeals.
4.
Civil applications are accordingly disposed of. ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) VS Maind/-