The Deccan Paper Mills Co Ltd v. Harshad Ramesh Ghule

4-cp-235-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4931 OF 2023 The Deccan Paper Mills Co Ltd ..

Petitioner V/S.

Harshad Ramesh Ghule, Pune and Ors.

..

Respondents ------------------- Ms. Meena H. Doshi, for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni with Abhishek Roy, Sweta Shah and Gourav Shahane, for the respondent No. 2.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2026.05.06 18:32:02 +0530 Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP, for the State.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD --------------------

CORAM

:

MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE :

6TH MAY 2026.

PC:

1.

When the petition is called out for consideration, the learned AGP has tendered a copy of an affidavit along with documents said to have been e-filed on behalf of respondent No.1, Special Land Acquisition Officer. Although the said affidavit-in-reply along with documents has been e-filed, the Registry has not been able to share the same.

2.

We direct the Registry to take the said affidavit in reply along with documents on record. For the convenience of this Court, the learned AGP tendered a photocopy of the same. The said affidavit varsha

4-cp-235-2026.doc shows that on 04/05/2026, the supplementary award has been passed by respondent No.1 and a specific amount of compensation has been determined. A copy of the supplementary award is also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply along with covering letter dated 04/05/2026 at Exhibit-18.

3.

The aforesaid documents indicate that respondent No.1 has finally complied with the directions issued by this Court. 4.

In the affidavit-in-reply, respondent No.1 has also tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in passing the said award. An explanation is sought to be given, on the basis of a number of communications placed on record, indicating the reason as to why the delay had occurred.

5.

Considering the unconditional apology tendered on behalf of respondent No.1 and the fact that now the said supplementary award has been passed on 04/05/2026, no further orders are necessary in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 6.

Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to take such remedies as available in law in the context of said supplementary award dated 04/05/2026. If the petitioner invokes such a statutory remedy, we are sure that the concerned authorities shall process the application that may be preferred by the petitioner, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) varsha