Bombay High Court
President Yeshwant Rural Education ... vs Mrudula Sanjay Nimbarte And Others on 14 November, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
(1) MCA500.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.500/2023 (FOR REVIEW) IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3489/2020 (D)
President, Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Wardha and Ors. .Vs. Milindkumar
Sitaramji Jibhkate and Others
AND
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.504/2023 (FOR REVIEW) IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2121/2021 (D)
President, Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Wardha and Ors. .Vs. Mrudula Sanjay
Nimbarte and Ors.
AND
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.503/2023 (FOR REVIEW) IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2684/2021 (D)
Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Wardha thr. Its President and anr. .Vs. Dr.
Mahendra Devkinandan Choudhary and Ors.
AND
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.501/2023 (FOR REVIEW) IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2683/2021 (D)
President, Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Wardha and Ors. .Vs. Dr. Dinesh Kumar
Omkarnath Agrawal and Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate Assisted By Mr. S. K. Bhoyar, Advocate
for applicant in all matters.
Mr. A. P. Raghute, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 12 in MCA No.
500/23, for respondent Nos. 1,3 & 9 in MCA No. 504/23
Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, Advocate for respondent Nos. 7, 9 & 14 in MCA
No. 500/23.
Mr. N.R. Rode, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.17, 18 And 22 in MCA No.
500/23, for respondent Nos. 11,12 and 16 in MCA No.504/23, for
respondent Nos.5 to 7 in MCA No. 503/23 and for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in
MCA No. 501/23.
Mr. Nitin P. Lambat, Advocate for respondent Nos.19 & 20 in MCA No.
500/23, for respondent Nos.13 and 14 in MCA No. 504/23, for respondent
No.8 in MCA No. 503/23 and MCA No. 501/23.
Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for respondent No.21 In MCA No. 500/23 &
for respondent No.15 in MCA No.504/23.
Mr. C. G. Deo, Advocate holding for Mr. D. R. Bhoyar, Advocate for
respondent No.9 in MCA No.503/23 and MCA No.501/23.
Mr. P. N. Shende, Advocate for respondent Nos.4, 7, 8 and 10 in MCA
No.504/23.
Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in MCA No.
503/23 and for respondent No.4 in MCA No.501/23.
(2) MCA500.23
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 07.11.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 14.11.2025
On 10.10.2025, following order was passed :
"Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. S.K. Bhoyar, learned Counsel for the
applicants, Mr. A.P. Raghute, Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Ms
Gauri Venkatraman, Mr. N.P. Lambat, Mr. P.N. Shende,
Ms Mugdha Chandurkar, Mr. Rohan Chandurkar and Mr.
C.G. Deo h/f Mr. D.R. Bhoyar, learned Counsel for the
nonapplicants in respective applications, and Mr. K.R.
Lule, A.G.P. for the State.
2] The non-applicants/original petitioners have raised
a preliminary objection on maintainability of the
applications. The learned Counsels for the non
applicants/original petitioners submit that the
applicants/original respondents have raised plea, that
was not raised during the course of hearing in writ
petitions and, therefore, review is not maintainable.
3] Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants, submits that amongst various grounds,
review is sought on the ground that binding precedents
were ignored, while delivering judgment/order, as also,
the contentions urged were not considered. According to
the applicants, the aforesaid ground is something that
can be said to be an error apparent on the face of
record.
4] We find merit in the submissions made by the
applicants. If binding precedents are ignored or that
contentions urged are not considered, it would amount
to an error apparent on the face of record. It is a
different matter whether indeed, binding precedents
were ignored or contentions urged were not considered,
which can be decided on merit, however, as regards
maintainability of the applications is concerned, we
accept the argument of the applicants that for the
aforesaid reason, review is maintainable.
5] The Counsels for the non-applicants then submit
that the judgment under question was delivered in
November - 2022; review was filed in March - 2023;
the Court has not yet granted stay, and despite such
(3) MCA500.23
status, the non-applicants' salary, in terms of the
judgment passed by this Court, has been not paid.
6] Thus, for last sixty-three months, the applicants
have not paid salary in terms of the judgment sought to
be reviewed. Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel,
submits that since review is pending, salary is not paid.
7] We do not find the aforesaid reason to be a valid
reason for not paying salary in terms of the judgment
sought to be reviewed. If there is no stay, there appears
no reason why should the judgment be not complied
with.
8] We are, therefore, of the view that the applicants
should be directed to deposit 50% of arrears of salary as
would accrue in terms of the judgment under question
to test their bona fides, however, Mr. M.G. Bhangde,
learned Senior Counsel, seeks time to have research on
the point and to make submissions on whether such
order could be passed. Granted.
9] Stand over to 7/11/2025 at 2:30 pm."
2. As could be seen, we had taken a view that the applicants
should be directed to deposit 50% of the arrears of salary as would
accrue in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed, to show their
bona fides.
3. Mr. M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for applicants,
submits that it is impermissible for the High Court to put such a
condition for entertaining the review application. In support, he has
relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Grand Vasant
Residents Welfare Association and anr. Vs. DDA and anr. [(2005) 12
SCC 281], wherein, the Supreme Court observed that the orders
passed by the High Court putting the appellant therein on terms to
deposit the price of the land, as a condition precedent to the hearing
of the writ petition, is untenable.
4. Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel submits that the
review jurisdiction is not separate jurisdiction but is a part of original
(4) MCA500.23
jurisdiction. Therefore, the aforesaid pronouncement of law would
hold good in the instant case also.
5. He has relied upon judgment in the case of Reliance
Industries Ltd. .Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel; [1997 SCC 300] , to
substantiate his argument that the review jurisdiction is not separate
jurisdiction but is a part of original jurisdiction.
6. We have gone through the judgment to find that such
observations were made in a set of facts, which are altogether
different. The ratio of the case centers on the procedural handling of
review petitions in the context of a High Court's jurisdiction,
particularly when a Division Bench of Judges expresses conflicting
opinions. In essence, the ratio highlights that the procedural rules
governing the High Court's review process, especially in the event of a
split decision of the Judges are to be strictly followed to uphold the
integrity of judicial proceedings and ensure a fair resolution of
disputes.
Thus, the judgment does not lay down a law that review
jurisdiction is something that will be governed by principles of
handling the writ jurisdiction.
7. He then invited our attention to the judgment in the case
of Devi Theatre .Vs. Vishwanath Raju; [(2004) 7 SCC 337] , wherein
the Supreme Court held that admitting an appeal subject to deposit
as a condition, is not envisaged by the provisions governing the first
appeals. Such a deposit has no bearing on the merit of the case,
which should be the base for admitting or not admitting the appeal.
The Supreme Court, however, further held that a condition to deposit
the amount is acceptable only when the appellant seeks stay of
execution or interim relief during the pendency of the appeal.
(5) MCA500.23
8. Thus, emphasis of the Supreme Court was on putting
condition to hear the appeal, which according to it, was legally
unjustified. However, condition to deposit amount as a condition to
grant interim relief is well recognized.
9. Mr. Bhangde then referred to judgment of the Supreme
Court in Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan Vs. State Bank of India;
[(1998) 8 SCC 676], wherein this Court held that non compliance of
the deposit under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, as amended in State of Maharashtra, will not
authorize dismissal of the appeal for non compliance. The Supreme
Court held that in such an eventuality, appropriate course was to
dismiss the civil application for stay and not the appeal itself. Thus,
the judgment speaks of consequences of non compliance of order of
depositing amount under Order XLI.
10. Reliance is also placed in B. P. Agrawal and anr. Vs.
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. and Ors.; [(2008) 3 SCC 397 , wherein
similar view was taken by the Supreme Court as referred in
Kayamuddin's case supra.
11. Having gone through the judgments, we find that there is
no bar to direct the party to deposit reasonable amount if its bona
fides are to be tested. Argument that review jurisdiction is not
separate jurisdiction but is a part of original jurisdiction i.e. writ
jurisdiction, is unacceptable inasmuch as the scope of review
jurisdiction is limited and does not allow rehearing of the case.
Broadly speaking the power is confined to correcting, "errors
apparent on the face of record", "preventing miscarriage of justice",
or "addressing new evidence or for other sufficient reasons".
(6) MCA500.23
12. Here, we are dealing with the party who has not complied
with judgment sought to be reviewed, which was delivered in
November, 2022. As such, the applicants, after pronouncement of
judgment, made a request to stay the effect and operation of the
judgment to challenge the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We had refused to stay the effect and operation of the judgment since
we found that the respondents-teachers herein have been wrongly
deprived of their legitimate entitlement.
13. The applicants, instead of approaching the Supreme Court,
filed review application in March, 2023 and along with review
application was filed an application to stay the impugned judgment.
The record indicates that stay was not granted. Despite such status,
the applicants did not comply with our orders.
14. The Coordinate Bench, in contempt petition filed by
respondents-teachers, vide order dated 04.08.2025, directed the
applicants to sell its properties by making appropriate application
before the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. Thus, the respondents-teachers were
constrained to file contempt petition for non compliance of judgment
under question and still the judgment is not complied.
15. As such, the argument of applicants is that they are not in
a position to pay regular salary, therefore, putting condition of
depositing 50% salary as condition to hear application, will be
extremely harsh. However, once the respondents are held entitled for
payment of salary in terms of VI and VII Pay Commissions, the
applicants were/are duty-bound to comply the judgment/order,
particularly when there is no stay to the impugned judgment/order.
It is not even the case of applicants, at least is not argued by the
(7) MCA500.23
applicant, that they made or are making attempt to generate the
funds to pay salary.
16. In the circumstances, the financial difficulty put forth by
the applicants is not acceptable. The applicants will have to work out
on it by taking appropriate steps, one of which is to sell properties,
which they should have done of their own. They have done nothing.
17. The other argument is that the Court should be consistent
in its approach in exercising the judicial discretion respecting similar
cases. In support, Mr. Bhangde, has relied upon judgment of the
Supreme Court in Vishnu Traders Vs. State of Haryana and Ors;
[1995 Supp (1) SCCC 461] . According to Mr.Bhangde, in identical
petition, this Court had, vide judgment dated 31.07.2025 in Writ
Petition No. 2022/2020, held that the teachers therein are entitled
for revised salary as per recommendations of the VI and VII Pay
Commissions and, thereafter, the review application was filed by the
concerned society and the judgment was stayed. The order
continued till review application was dismissed on 31.01.2025.
Thereafter, on the request made by society, this Court continued the
stay for a period of eight weeks to enable the aggrieved society to
approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the society filed
Special Leave Petition and upon hearing the parties, the Supreme
Court was pleased to issue notice and stay the judgment.
Accordingly, it is argued that similar approach should be taken in the
present case as well.
18. We do not find substance in the aforesaid submission. We
have come across similar such cases filed by different societies
wherein the issue of payment of revised salary in terms of
recommendations of the VI and VII Pay Commissions was considered
(8) MCA500.23
and decided in favour of the teachers. Our experience is that the
concerned society/management is reluctant to pay legitimate dues.
19. It is, in these circumstances viz. reluctance of societies to
pay legitimate dues, we refused to stay the impugned judgment when
a request was made by the applicants herein (original respondent
Nos. 6 to 8) to stay the effect and operation of the judgment. Further,
the stay was not granted pending review application nor have review
applicants insisted for an order on the application seeking stay,
maybe because they were aware that while granting stay, condition to
deposit amount could be imposed.
20. Thus, there is consistency in the approach of the societies
running educational institutions to either deprive or delay the
legitimate dues of the teachers who otherwise are backbone of
developing the society by imparting quality education, to students,
which, in our view, could only be achieved by engaging services of a
competent faculty, naturally upon payment of appropriate
emoluments.
21. Considering the peculiar circumstances, we deem it
appropriate to direct the applicant to deposit 50% of arrears of salary
as would accrue in terms of the judgment under question within four
weeks from today or in the alternative to submit an undertaking that
in the event the review application is dismissed, the applicants shall
pay the entire salary/dues along with arrears within four weeks from
the date of judgment.
Order accordingly.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Kahale
