Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5649 (BOM)

The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project v. Madhukar So Umrao Mote and Ors

CA/461/2025 · 2025-06-30

Shri Shailesh P Brahme

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 63 ca 462.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 462 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 999 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division .. Applicant Versus Bhimrao Umrao Deokar and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1014 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division .. Applicant Versus Ashruba Gana Deokar and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 467 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1020 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division .. Applicant Versus Ambadas Gana Deokar and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 461 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1007 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division .. Applicant Versus 2025:BHC-AUG:16737 2 63 ca 462.25 Madhukar Umrao Deokar and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 465 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1011 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division .. Applicant Versus Dada Ankush Khatal and others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 469 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 1003 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer Osmanabad Medium Project Division .. Applicant Versus Tatyaram Shivdas Khatal and others .. Respondents Shri Chetan T. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant in all matters Shri B. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in all matters. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 30TH JUNE, 2025. ORDER : . Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. P. for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent No. 1, though served. 2. Applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 879 days caused in filing first appeals. In all applications it is desirable to 3 63 ca 462.25 condone the delay for the reasons stated in para Nos. 4 and 5 of the applications. 4. The contents thereof are not controverted by the respondents. Appeals are needed to be dealt with on merits as those have repercussions on public exchequer. 5. The civil applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ on condition that applicant shall deposit the amount under the award with interest within a period of eight (08) from today. The civil applications are disposed of. Office is directed to register first appeals. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/June 25