Bombay High Court
AKASHDEEP AGARWAL, DIRECTOR PROPRIETOR ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL AND ANR.versusSMT. TARABAI SAMPAT WAGHMARE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the interim application should be disposed of and the dispute over the affidavit and land ownership referred to the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation for further determination.
Summary
The Applicants filed an interim application alleging that Respondent No.1 filed a false affidavit to obtain a security interest and subsequently withdrew Rs.8,96,000 of compensation deposited with the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Thane. The Applicants contend that the land ownership claimed by Respondent No.1, based on a ¼ share in a 6x12 extract, is incorrect as per records from the Maharashtra Government under the Land Revenue Code. The Respondents opposed any relief, arguing that the amount has already been withdrawn and the pending First Appeal will determine the parties' rights. The Court examined the submissions and directed that the matter be referred back to the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation for further examination of the land ownership documents and any additional evidence. Both parties were instructed to appear before the Commissioner within ten days, and the Commissioner was to issue a reasoned order within six weeks. The interim application was consequently disposed of without granting the reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 is false and misleading for the purpose of withdrawing the compensation amount.
- Whether the withdrawn compensation amount should be redeposited pending adjudication of the First Appeal.
- Whether the land ownership asserted by Respondent No.1 as security is valid under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 148, 148(A)
Subjects
- interim application
- false affidavit
- compensation withdrawal
- land ownership
- Labour Court
- Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation
- first appeal
- security
- surety
Judgment
1 of 4 903.IA.1946.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1946 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.23223 OF 2024
Akashdeep Agarwal, Director Proprietor
Ashtvinayak Hospital and another Applicants
versus
Smt.Tarabai Sampat Waghmare and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Pratap Sampat with Ms.Bharti Suvarna i/by Mr.Aarti Suvarna for Applicants.
Ms.Kavita Anchan with Mr.Zabair Zariwala for Respondents.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 19th August 2026
P.C.
1. This Interim Application has been filed praying for the following
reliefs:
“a) Hold that the affidavit dated 20-12-2025 filed by Respondent no.1 for
furnishing security is false and misleading and contrary to the order dated 15-10-
2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court;
b) Direct Respondent nos.1 and 2 to forthwith redeposit the compensation
amount of Rs.8,96,000/- withdrawn pursuant to the order dated 22-12-2025 with
the office of learned Commissioner, Labour Court, Thane;
c) Stay the operation and effect of the order dated 22-12-2025 permitting
withdrawal of the compensation amount, pending adjudication of the present First
Appeal;
d) Admit and adjudicate the Appeal for reliefs prayed therein.”
2. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 12 th December 2025
Digitally signed
MANISH
SURESHRAO
by MANISH
SURESHRAO
THATTE
had directed the Respondent no.1 to furnish the details of the land owned by her
THATTE Date: 2026.08.20
09:47:27 +0530
by producing copy of 7x12 extract before the learned Commissioner for
M.S.Thatte
2 of 4 903.IA.1946.2026.DOC
Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane on 20 th December
2025. Further, the learned Commissioner was directed to decide the withdrawal
application without granting any adjournment on the basis of documents which
were submitted by Respondent no.1. Pursuant to the said directions, the
Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane
passed an order dated 20th December 2025 verifying the documents submitted by
Respondent no.1 and held that the Respondent no.1 was allowed to withdraw the
amount of compensation deposited with interest accrued thereon, if any, and also
in compliance of the order of this Court dated 12 th December 2025, held that if
there was any obligation to pass any order for return of the amount and in case it is
not returned, the land which was given as security/surety, could be utilized for
passing necessaryorders.
3. Today, learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that post
passing the aforesaid order dated 20 th December 2025 by the Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane, the Respondent
no.1 has withdrawn the amount of Rs.8,96,000/-. He, however, has obtained
certain documents from the website of Maharashtra Government maintained
under Rules, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and
Registers Rules, 1971 formulated under Sections 148 and 148(A) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 from where he has been able to ascertain
that the ownership of the ¼ share in one acre of land in gat no.9, 6x12 extract
No.4149 which the Respondent no.1 sought to assert ownership and filed an
affidavit to that effect to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs.8,96,000/-, is an
M.S.Thatte
3 of 4 903.IA.1946.2026.DOC
incorrect position. It is, therefore, his submission that the amount withdrawn of
Rs.8,96,000/- has been withdrawn by Respondent no.1 on the basis of a false
affidavit. He further submits that it is his apprehension that Respondent no.1 may
have spent the said amount and he is not fully secured. The First Appeal against
the order of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First Labour
Court, Thane dated 29th November 2018 is pending adjudication before this Court
and all the rights of the parties would be decided on adjudication of the First
Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents has vehemently opposed for grant
of any relief as sought for in the present Interim Application and submitted that
once the amount has already been withdrawn and the First Appeal is pending
adjudication, the return of the amount to this Court would serve no purpose and
the rights of the parties would be subject to the outcome of the First Appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the assertions
made by learned counsel for Applicant, I am of the view that considering the
documents which have come in possession of the learned counsel for the
Applicant, which show the ownership of the Respondents as asserted by them may
not be correct, can be examined by the Commissioner for Employees’
Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane and a further order thereon can
be passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First
Labour Court, Thane. Any further documents along with any application which
the Applicant would like to produce before the Commissioner for Employees’
Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane may also be produced at the
M.S.Thatte
4 of 4 903.IA.1946.2026.DOC
time of hearing before Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Judge,
First Labour Court, Thane. The Respondents are also at a liberty to file any
documents in support of their contention before the Commissioner for Employees’
Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane.
6. The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First
Labour Court, Thane shall give notice of hearing to the parties within ten days
from the date of this order. Let the parties appear before the Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane and after hearing
the parties, a reasoned order thereafter shall be passed by the Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation & Judge, First Labour Court, Thane. All contentions of
the parties are expressly kept open. All this exercise should be completed within six
weeks from today.
7. The Interim Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…