Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 4820 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 July, 2017
1 FA 890.2013(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.890/2013
Western Coalfields Ltd., . ..APPELLANT
Through Chief General Manager,
Wani North Area, Bhallar Township,
Tq.Wani, District Yavatmal.
--Versus ---
Raghunath Bapurao Jivtode, .RESPONDENT
Aged about 40 years, Occupation-Agriculturist,
R/o Gowari, Post : Kona,
Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Tushar Darda, Advocate for appellant.
Shri N.G.Solao, Advocate for respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE,J.
DATED : 20.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appeal is restored to file by separate order passed in MCA today.
The appeal is already admitted and hence, taken up for hearing by consent of
learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties.
2. The only question which arises for my determination is, whether or
not the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this
Court dated 14.02.2017 rendered in group of First Appeals starting with First
Appeal No.796/2013.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:41:12 :::
2 FA 890.2013(J)
3. In the judgment dated 14.02.2017, in group of appeals starting with
First Appeal No.796/2013, this Court, having considered the record of those
cases, then found that the respondents therein were not entitled for interest under
provisions of Section 17(3) of the Coal-Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957. This Court also relied upon the judgment dated
20.10.2016 rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.1348/2009 ( Western
Coalfields Ltd. vs. Rangnath s/o Laxman Asutkar) and connected appeals. The
respondent herein is also similarly situated as the respondents in the said appeals.
Therefore, the principle of law applied in those appeals would also be applicable
to the respondent's case here. There is no evidence led by respondent to
substantiate his claim that he was entitled for interest. Therefore, I am of the
view, the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment of
this Court and as such, this appeal also deserves to be disposed of on similar lines.
4. Hence order.
O R D E R
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside.
The parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Andurkar..
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!