L.m. Acharya

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 Krishna Tukaram Shete Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Shri L.M.Acharya, advocate for applicant. Smt. G.P.Mulekar, AGP for respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- JULY 16, 2010 P.C. Considering issue raised in this application, we think it appropriate that reply ought to have been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, respondent herein. Learned AGP seeks time to file reply within two weeks from today. Accordingly list this application on 30th July, 2010. Advance copy of the reply affidavit be made over to the Counsel for the Applicant. (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4071 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 ...... Krishna Tukaram Shete ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.S.Shekhawat i/b Mr.L.M.Acharya for Applicant. Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 5, 2010. P.C. Request for adjournment is made at the instance of Applicant on the ground that the Advocate on record is out of station. No leave note has been filed. In such situation, the matter ought to proceed. However, by way of indulgence, we defer the hearing of this matter to 16th August 2010. It is made clear that no request for adjournment or keeping back the matter at the instance of Applicant shall be entertained on the next date of hearing. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2431 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1529 OF 2009 . Mr.Krishna Shete .. Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.L.M.Acharya, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP for the Respondents CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 19th November , 2010 P.C. : The applicant had filed Special Civil Suit No.157 of 2005 claiming recovery of interest on the award amount of Rs.51,16,492/- and the said suit has been decreed for a total sum of Rs.92,78,008/- which amount has been already deposited by the State Government as directed in First Appeal No.1529 of 2009 which impugns the said decree. By this application, the plaintiff prays for leave to withdraw the amount deposited by the State Government and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to allow this application. Admittedly, the acquired land admeasuring about 4766.76 sq. meters located within the municipal area of Bhor, District-Pune was reserved in the development plan for the Forest Office and Nursery and its possession was taken over on 28.1.1983. The award came to be passed on or about 7.4.1998 determining the compensation payable to the plaintiff at Rs.51,16,492/- and the said amount has been paid to the plaintiff on 30.9.1998. While allowing the Special Suit by the impugned decree dated 18.4.2009, the trial court has granted simple interest at 9% on the award amount from 7.4.1998 to 30.9.1998, with which we do not find any fault atleast at this stage. However, interest has been granted at 8% per annum on Rs.51,16,492/- w.e.f. 28.1.1993 to 7.4.1998 and from 7.4.1998 to 5.1.2009 further interest has been awarded at 6% per annum. As noted earlier the amount deposited by the Government has been invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of three years and even if we may not prima facie find fault in awarding interest of Rs.2,21,972/- for the period from 7.4.1998 to 13.9.1998, we are not inclined at this stage to disturb the investment. At the best First Appeal No.1529 of 2009 can be heard and decided expeditiously. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff will submit private paper book within four weeks and as soon as the appeal is ready for final hearing will take out a motion for fixing the date. Hence the stay application is rejected. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.]