Bombay High Court
MAHADEO PANDHARINATH MUNDE AD ANRversusTHE EX. ENGINEER, BEED IRRIGATION DIVISION, THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABAD AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The court held that the requirement of a solvent surety/security/bank guarantee is relaxed and the applicant may submit a usual undertaking to withdraw the balance amount.
Summary
The applicant Mahadeo Pandharinath Munde sought to withdraw the remaining 25% of an amount deposited by the acquiring body, which had earlier deposited only 50% of the sum ordered by the court. The court had previously conditioned the withdrawal on the applicant furnishing a solvent surety, security, or bank guarantee. The applicant filed an application to replace this stringent condition with a simple undertaking. The court observed that the acquiring body had not complied with the earlier direction to deposit the full amount, and imposing a strict surety requirement would defeat the purpose of the order. Consequently, the court allowed the application, modifying the earlier order to permit the applicant to submit a usual undertaking satisfactory to the Registrar. The Registry was directed to disburse the balance amount upon receipt of the undertaking.
Issues considered
- Whether the condition of furnishing a solvent surety/security/bank guarantee for withdrawal of the balance amount can be relaxed
- Whether the applicant may withdraw the remaining 25% of the deposited amount upon furnishing a usual undertaking
Subjects
- withdrawal of deposited amount
- surety requirement
- court order modification
- civil procedure
- irrigation department
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38177
11-CA.10268.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
918 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10268 OF 2025
IN FA/1058/2019
Mahadeo Pandharinath Munde and Anr
VERSUS
The Executive Engineer, Beed Irrigation Division And Anr.
----
Mr.Sachin S. Tambe, Advocate h/f. Mr.Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for
applicant
Ms.Vaishali S. Swami, Advocate h/f. Mr.Mahesh C. Swami, Advocate for
respondent no.1
Mr.R.K.Ingole, AGP for respondent no.2
----
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
ORDER :-
Despite this court directed the respondent – acquiring body
to deposit the entire amount in this court while granting stay, the
acquiring body opted to deposit 50% amount only. Out of the 50%
amount, the applicant initially withdrew 75% of the deposited amount
and later filed an application to withdraw the balance amount, i.e. 25%
of the deposited amount. This court allowed to withdraw the balance
amount also putting a condition to submit solvent surety/security/bank
guarantee.
2 11-CA.10268
2. This application is filed to relax the condition of
submitting solvent surety/security/bank guarantee and instead to
permit the applicant to submit usual undertaking. Considering the
fact that the acquiring body has not even deposit the entire amount
as was directed by this court, I find that such stringent condition
would frustrate the object of the order permitting the
applicant/claimant to withdraw the amount.
3. Hence, this application stands allowed. The order dated
22.04.2025 passed in Civil Application No.13568 of 2023 is modified
to the extent of submitting solvent surety/security/bank guarantee.
Instead, the applicant is permitted to submit usual undertaking to
the satisfaction of learned Registrar (Judicial) of this court. Registry
is directed to disburse the amount to the applicant by accepting the
usual undertaking.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
………..
KBP
Checking your session…