M.S.E.B. Now M.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. Thr Its Exe Engineer Civil, Latur Thr Its Authorised Signatory Dinkar v. Abdul Alim Abdul Aziz Patel Since Deceased Thr His Lrs Shafikbee And ORS

1 CA 9958 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.9783 of 2018 In First Appeal No.416 of 1998 Abdul Alim Abdul Aziz Patel Since deceased through his legal representatives.

.. Applicants.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra And Another.

.. Respondents.

---- Shri. Shrikant Patil, Advocate, holding for Shri. Mahesh Patil, Advocate, for applicants .

Shri. S.J. Salgare, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1.

Shri. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

---- With Civil Application No.9958 of 2016 In First Appeal No.416 of 1998 Maharashtra State Electricity Board now Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Through its Executive Engineer Civil, Latur. .. Applicants.

2 CA 9958 of 2016

Versus

Abdul Alim Abdul Aziz Patel Since deceased, through his legal representatives. .. Respondents. ---- Shri. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate, for applicant. Shri. Shrikant Patil, Advocate, holding for Shri. Mahesh Patil, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1A to 1H. Shri. S.J. Salgare, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.2.

---- Coram: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

Date: 31 JULY 2018 ORDER:

1) Notice is given in the first proceeding. It is waived by learned counsel for the acquiring body and also the Assistant Government Pleader. In second proceeding notice is waived by original respondents of the first appeal.

2) Today learned counsel for the acquiring body produced on record a communication dated 11-4-2018 showing that the acquiring body does not want to challenge the decision given by the Reference Court on 15-7-2017.

3 CA 9958 of 2016 3) The submissions made and the record show that after remand of the matter by this Court, the Reference Court has given decision and the acquiring body does not want to challenge the said decision. In the matter this Court had allowed the original claimants of the Reference Petition to withdraw 50% amount and for that they were asked to give surety and bank guarantee. In view of the intention of the acquiring body expressed in the communication that it does not want to file any proceeding against the new decision of the Reference Court there is no need to keep the surety and the bank guarantee. Both stand discharged.

4) Civil Application No.9958/2016 is filed for the acquiring body to give direction to the Registry to refund the amount which was lying with this Court as the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and as the new decision is accepted by the acquiring body the amount which is lying in this Court needs to be sent to the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.282/1995.

4 CA 9958 of 2016 5) So, the Registry is directed to send the amount with interest if any to the Reference Court in LAR No.282/1995. In those terms both the civil application are allowed and disposed of.

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl