Balasaheb Raibhan Tayde v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

(1) 907 CA-1684.2022 & ors.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1684 OF 2022 IN X-OBJST/28860/2019 KAILASH RAIBHAN TAYDE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND 908 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1686 OF 2022 IN X-OBJST/28857/2019 BALASAHEB RAIBHAN TAYDE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND 915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5351 OF 2023 IN X-OBJST/30596/2019 JANARDHAN LAXMAN TAYDE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Mr. Abhishek Hajare, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. S.S. Dande and Mr. S.W. Mundhe, AGPs for respondent State in respective applications.

Mr. B.R. Surwase and Mrs. Ranjana Reddy, Advocates for Acquiring Body in respective applications.

...

CORAM :

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

DATED :

20th April 2023.

ORDER:- 1.

Heard rival submissions.

2.

The respective applicants are seeking condonation of delay periods mentioned in these applications in filing the

(2) 907 CA-1684.2022 & ors.odt Cross Objections, which appears to be caused due to their poor financial condition.

3.

The learned AGP as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.2 Acquiring Body strongly opposed the applications on the ground that no reasonable cause is mentioned for condoning the delay periods.

4.

However, considering the statutory right of the applicants and for the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed and the delay periods mentioned in these applications stand condoned subject to condition that the applicants shall not claim any interest for the period of aforesaid delay on the enhanced compensation, if granted. 5.

The Cross Objections be registered after removal of office objections, if any.

6.

The applications are accordingly disposed of. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) vd_dhirde