Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14185 (BOM)

BAGLA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, THR ITS DIRECTOR, AURANGABAD v. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CIDCO) AURANGABAD AND ANR

CA/11590/2022 · 2026-09-29

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 921-ca-11591-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11591 OF 2022 IN FAST/6477/2022 Bagla Industries Private Limited, Thr Its Director, Aurangabad VERSUS City And Industrial Development Corporation (cidco) Aurangabad And Anr ... Mr. D. R. Jethliya, Advocate for Applicant Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent no.1 ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11590 OF 2022 IN FAST/6477/2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7079 OF 2020 IN FAST/10157/2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7078 OF 2020 IN FAST/10157/2020 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3541 OF 2021 IN FAST/10157/2020 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3541 OF 2021 . Mr. D. R. Jethliya, learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the controversy over adequacy of the compensation is pending before this Court between respondent no.1/CIDCO and the erstwhile owner M/s. Aurangabad Electrical Private Limited. The proceedings in the First Appeal have arisen out of the judgment and award 2026:BHC-AUG:45811 2 921-ca-11591-2022 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.331 of 2006 which was in respect of the property situated at gut no.40 of Golwadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. 2. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the Company Scheme Petition No.359 of 2016 connected with Company Summons For Direction No.220 of 2016 and other connected matters came to be filed before this Court on its original side at the Principal seat at Bombay. In nutshell, it was a de-merger of petitioner/company i.e. Aurangabad Electricals Limited into (1) Bagla Electrical and Electronics Private Limited (resulting company no.1) and (2) Bagla Industries Private Limited (resulting company no.2). 3. Mr. Jethliya, learned Advocate takes me to page no.38 of the Civil Application which is titled as ‘Part C DEMERGER OF THE REAL ESTATE UNDERTAKING INTO BIPL’. Clause no.12.1 of the part ‘c’ reads thus: 12.1. Upon the coming into effect of this Scheme and with effect from the Appointed Date, the whole of the undertaking and properties of the Real Estate Undertaking shall pursuant to the provisions contained in Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 100 to 103 and all other applicable provisions, if any, of the Act and without any further act, deed, matter or thing, stand transferred to and vested in and / or be deemed to be transferred to and vested in 3 921-ca-11591-2022 BIPL so as to vest in BIPL all rights, title and interest pertaining to the Real Estate Undertaing. 4. He also points out clause no.18 about legal proceedings. Referring to Clause no.18, Mr. Jethliya submits that it is for the present applicant to take over all the legal proceedings pending on behalf of / against M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Limited which include present proceeding pertaining to property gut no.40, situated at Golwadi, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. Mr. Jethliya further submits that the interest of the original respondent/Ms. Aurangabad Electricals Limited is now resulted in present applicant by virtue of demerger proceedings. With this, it is prayed that the appellant be directed to modify the title clause of Appeal and the Applications therein by replacing the name of M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Private Limited by applicant Bagla Industries Private Limited. Mr. Jethliya submits that no prejudice shall cause to the appellant or the State Government not it shall change the nature of controversy. 5. Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate representing the CIDCO and learned Mr. R. K. Ingole, learned AGP would submit that the change would be at the risk of the applicant. 4 921-ca-11591-2022 6. After hearing the parties, I deem it appropriate to allow the application at the risk of applicant. Hence, the following order: ORDER a. Civil Application stands allowed. b. The appellant shall amend the title clause of First Appeal and the Applications therein by entering the name of present applicant in place of M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Private Limited. c. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks herefrom. d. Civil Application stands disposed of. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11590 OF 2022 . Heard. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. The applicants are permitted to file the First Appeal in the name of Bagla Industries Private Limited instead of M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Private Limited against the judgment and award passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in Land acquisition Reference No.331 of 2006. 3. Civil Application stands disposed of. 5 921-ca-11591-2022 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11591 OF 2022 1. Present Civil Application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 972 days caused in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 05.04.2019 delivered by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in Land Acquisition Reference No.331 of 2006. Suffice to note, the Acquiring Body/CIDCO has already filed the First Appeal challenging the same judgment and award. The First Appeal filed by CIDCO is pending before this Court. The applicant is resulting Company which has come into existence subsequent to demerger of original owner M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Private Limited. Obviously as per the scheme, the right of original claimant/owner is devolved upon the present applicant. Seeking enhancement in the compensation is a statutory right. 2. The reasons for causing the delay are widely expressed at paragraph nos.2 to 7 of the application. 3. Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the CIDCO although formally opposed the application, submits that appropriate order be passed clarifying that the applicant shall not be entitled for the statutory benefit and interest on the delayed period. 6 921-ca-11591-2022 4. In view of this, I find that the a case is made out for condonation of delay in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and ors., (Civil Appeal arising out of (C) No.670/2020) and connected matters decided on 23.04.2025. Hence, the following order: ORDER a. Civil Application stands allowed. b. Delay of 972 days caused in filing the First Appeal stands condoned. c. It is clarified that in the event this Court allows the Appeal, the applicant/appellant shall not be entitled for any interest and statutory benefits for the period of delay. d. Civil Application stands disposed of. e. Appeal be registered. FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.6477 OF 2022 . Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 27.10.2026. Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, learned Advocate waives service of notice for respondent no.1. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent no.2. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026