Bombay High Court

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBABASAHEB FAKIRA BANSODE AND ANR

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The court stayed the execution, allowed partial withdrawal of the deposited amount, and condoned the delay in filing the first appeal.

Summary

The applicant filed a series of civil applications seeking a stay of execution of a judgment and award, permission to withdraw half of the amount deposited with the court, and condonation of a 133‑day delay in filing the first appeal. The court first allowed the stay application as per prayer clause ‘B’. It then partially allowed the withdrawal application, permitting the applicant to withdraw 50% of the deposited sum with interest upon furnishing a standard undertaking. The court also condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, finding it was caused by administrative exigency and not deliberate. Finally, the court issued a notice for the first appeal, with the applicant’s counsel waiving service of notice. All applications were disposed of with the orders as described.

Issues considered

Whether a stay of execution of the impugned judgment and award should be granted.
Whether the applicant may withdraw the amount deposited with the court.
Whether the 133‑day delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned.
Procedural requirements for issuing notice of the first appeal.

Subjects

stay of execution
withdrawal of deposited amount
condonation of delay
first appeal
civil application
procedural law

Judgment

                                               17 CA NO. 2425 OF 2026.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
            17 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2425 OF 2026
                      IN FAST/31883/2023

                    Babasaheb Fakira Bansode
                            VERSUS
     Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport
                           Corporation
                               ...
Ms. Mangal M. Chavan h/for Ms. Sangita P. Daud, Advocate for
Applicant
Mr. Babasaheb F. Bansode, Advocate for Respondent
                             WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14900 OF 2023
                   IN FAST/31883/2023 WITH
            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14901 OF 2023
                      IN FAST/31883/2023
                               ….

                    CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                      DATE : 04.03.2026
PER COURT :-

APPLICATION FOR STAY

1.          This is an application seeking stay to the execution of

the impugned judgment and award.


2.          The learned advocate for the applicant / appellant

submits that the entire amount as per the impugned judgment and

award is deposited in this Court.


3.        In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms

of prayer clause ‘B’ and disposed of.

                                                                 1 of 4
                                     (( 2 ))      17 CA NO. 2425 OF 2026


APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNT


1.             This is an application seeking permission to withdraw the

amount deposited in this Court pursuant to the award.


2.             Heard.


3.             Learned advocate for respondent strongly opposed the

application.


4.             Perused the application. For the reasons stated therein

and considering the arguments of both the sides, it would be proper

to partly allow the application. Hence, the following order:


                                ::ORDER::


a.        The application is partly allowed.

b.        The applicants are permitted to withdraw 50% of the

          amount out of the amount deposited by the appellant in

          this court, with accrued interest thereon, on furnishing

          usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the learned

          Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.




                                                                     2 of 4
                                     (( 3 ))     17 CA NO. 2425 OF 2026


APPLICATION FOR DELAY


1.          Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.


2.          This is an application for condonation of delay of 133

days caused in filing the first appeal.


3.          The learned Advocate for respondent strongly opposed

the application and submitted that there is no sufficient reason to

condone the delay.


4.          Perused the application. For the reasons stated therein, it

appears that the delay is occasioned on account of administrative

exigency. Hence, sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay.

The application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice as the

delay is neither deliberate nor intentional.     Hence, the following

order:

                                ::ORDER::


a.         Civil Application is allowed and disposed of.


b.         The delay of 133 days caused in filing the first appeal is

           condoned.




                                                                    3 of 4
                                  (( 4 ))      17 CA NO. 2425 OF 2026


FIRST APPEAL


1.         Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 24.06.2026


2.         Ms. Mangal M. Chavan holding for Ms. Sangita P. Daud,

learned Advocate waives service of notice for Respondents.


3.         Call Record & Proceedings.



                                [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]

HRJadhav




                                                                  4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…