Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 36]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Manish vs Godawari Marathawada Irrigation ... on 26 September, 2018

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Indu Malhotra

     ITEM NO.806                                COURT NO.9                       SECTION IX
                                     S U P R E M E C O U R T O F            I N D I A
                                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11760-11761/2018
     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-03-2018
     in CA No. 14464/2017 19-03-2018 in CA No. 3538/2016 passed by the
     High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad)
     MANISH                                                                       Petitioner(s)

                                                         VERSUS

     GODAWARI MARATHAWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
     CORPORATION                                                                  Respondent(s)

     Date : 26-09-2018 This matter was orally MENTIONED today.

     CORAM :                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
                                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

     For Petitioner(s)                     Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv. (Mentioned by)
                                           Mr. B. K. Pal, AOR
     For Respondent(s)

                                UPON being MENTIONED the Court made the following
                                                   O R D E R

This Court, on 16.07.2018, passed the following order:

“No one appears for the respondent, even though served.
The Bombay High Court has ordered 60% deposit, pending the Section 37 appeal. We have passed orders stating that since these are money decrees there should be 100% deposit, with the respondent being entitled to withdraw the amount deposited and furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the High Court.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders dated 19.03.2018 and mandate a 100% deposit be made within a period of eight weeks from today.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” Upon being mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner, the following sentence is incorporated in the aforesaid order before the last line:
Signature Not Verified
“The deposit so made may be allowed to be withdrawn on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2018.09.26 16:35:51 IST Reason: the High Court.” (R. NATARAJAN) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER