M/s. Prakalp Private Limited Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC)Advocate for & Anr. v. GHUGE , J.) rlj/
Judgment
wp10702.24--1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 10702 OF 2024M/s Shiv Embroidery Manufacturing Company VERSUSMaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation MIDC and another…ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10726 OF 2024M/s. Prakalp Precast Concrete ProductsVersusMaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC)…..AND WRIT PETITION NO. 10727 OF 2024M/s. Prakalp Private Limited VersusMaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC)Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Salunke AGP for Respondents: Mr. V. M. Kagne Advocate for Respondent-M.I.D.C. : Mr. S.S. Dande ….. CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATED:1st OCTOBER, 2024. PER COURT :-
All these matters were heard yesterday. Since wenoticed that the issue could be resolved, we granted an overnightpass over. wp10702.24--2- 2. Considering the order that we propose to pass, we arenot required to advert to the pleadings and contentions of the parties. Suffice it to say that, the M.I.D.C. has tendered individual calculationsin each of these three Writ Petitions. The ready reference chartstendered to the court are marked as “X” in each of these Petitions.
The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits, oninstructions, that whatever the amounts have been calculated by theM.I.D.C, which are in terms of the Rules and the provisionsapplicable, these three Writ Petitioners would deposit 25% of theamount, on or before 15.10.2024 with the M.I.D.C. Further amount of25% would be deposited by 30.10.2024 and the remaining 50%amount would be deposited, on or before 10.11.2024.
The learned advocate for the M.I.D.C. submits that finalreceipts would be issued only after the last installment is paid and noextension of time would be granted. If there is any default ininstallments, the earlier installments paid, would be forfeited andfurther precipitative action would be initiated by the M.I.D.C.
The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits, oninstructions, that as these Petitioners are seriously accepting thecharts tendered by the M.I.D.C and that there would be no default. wp10702.24--3- 6. In view of above statement, these Writ Petitions aredisposed off. 7. Needless to state that the notices issued by the M.I.D.C.stand neutralized subject to the compliance of the abovearrangement. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J.) rlj/
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.