Bombay High Court
Shaikh Yasin Shaikh Husen vs Sitabai Bharat Udar And Others on 11 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:22022
1 5-WP-7800-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7800 OF 2024
SHAIKH YASIN SHAIKH HUSEN
VERSUS
SITABAI BHARAT UDAR AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar and
Mr. Akshay D Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Tanvi V. Jadhav
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11-08-2025
PER COURT:-
1. Present petition takes an exception to the order dated
14.06.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,
Ambajogai, District Beed, on application at Exhibit-21 in Special
Darkhast No.8 of 2019.
2. The respondents had filed a claim against the present
petitioner before the learned Commissioner, Employees
Compensation and Civil Judge Senior Division, Ambajogai, seeking
compensation on account of demise of one Bharat Maruti Udar
being W.M.C.No.2 of 2014. The learned Commissioner allowed the
matter vide judgment dated 16.04.2019. The respondents filed
Special Execution Petition No.8 of 2019 for execution of the said
judgment and award dated 16.04.2019 passed by the learned
Commissioner, Employees Compensation. In this proceeding, the
petitioner filed an application vide Exhibit-21, inter alia, claiming
that the entire claim was settled amicably between the parties
2 5-WP-7800-24.odt
against payment of sum of Rs.6 Lakh. It is claimed that
Rs.2,60,000/- was paid by cheque and further amount of
Rs.2,60,000/- was paid in cash on 17.01.2020 when the parties
entered in the agreement. It is claimed that prior to the said date,
a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid for meeting funeral expenses
immediately on sad demise of said Bharat and a sum of
Rs.70,000/- was paid thereafter on 07.09.2012. The learned
Executing Court has rejected the said application vide order dated
14.06.2024, placing reliance on Order XXI, Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") which provides for
manner in which out of Court settlement is to be recorded by the
Executing Court. It is observed that said provision is not followed
and, therefore, contention raised by the petitioner cannot be
accepted.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the
learned Executing Court has failed to consider provision under
Order XXI, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. He further contends that the
stipulations contemplated under the said provision were observed
scrupulously in the agreement and, therefore, agreement should
be accepted as full and final settlement of the claim of the
petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondents has
placed reliance on Sections 28 and 29 of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923, to contend that in the agreement of
3 5-WP-7800-24.odt
settlement out of Court, before or after the award by the learned
Commissioner, Employees Compensation has to be compulsorily
registered, if the claimant is women or person under legal
disability. She further states that the memorandum of settlement
is required to be sent to the Commissioner, who in turn must arrive
at satisfaction, as regards genuineness of the settlement and
reasonableness of amount before registering it.
5. The provision also contemplates that the learned
Commissioner may refuse to register memorandum if the amount
for which the claim settled is not just and proper according to him,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The
effect of non-registration of agreement is provided under Section
29 which states that if the agreement is not registered as provided
under Section 28, then the employer is liable to pay entire amount
as per the award.
6. Admittedly, the alleged agreement between the parties on
which the petitioner has placed reliance is not registered by
following mandate of Section 28. Consequently, in view of Section
29, the agreement cannot be relied upon. In view of the above, no
case for interference is made out. Writ petition is dismissed.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI]
JUDGE
rrd
