State of Maharashtra vs State Of Maharashta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 843

G.S.KULKARNI
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashta – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Anil Anturkar, Advocate, Prathamesh Bhargude, Advocate, Ranjit Shinde, Advocate, Jyoti Chavan, Advocate, S.B. Gore, Advocate, Aspi Chinoy, Advocate, Prasad Dhakephalkar, Advocate, Cheerag Balsara, Advocate, Srinivas Bobde, Advocate, Kartikeya Desai, Advocate, Asadali Mazgaonwala, Advocate, Kartikeya & Associates, Advocate

Table of Content
1. review jurisdiction and consent terms (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background on the contract and dispute (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. governor's authority during president's rule (Para 10 , 12 , 13)
4. state's arguments against consent terms (Para 21 , 22 , 27)
5. court's reasoning on governor's decision (Para 36 , 38 , 39)
6. final judicial conclusion on review (Para 61 , 65)

JUDGMENT

G S Kulkarni, J. - The review petitioner is the State of Maharashtra (for short "the State"), who is the original respondent (award debtor) in Commercial Execution Application No.310 of 2019, filed by the respondent-Manaj Tollway Private Limited (for short, "Manaj") (award creditor).

2. The State has prayed for review of the consent order passed by this Court on 12 December 2019, on the commercial execution application, which reads thus:-

" Learned Senior Counsel for the parties have tendered Consent Terms executed between the applicant and respondent-the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Public Works Department. The parties have agreed that the award stands satisfied in the manner as agreed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 843

G.S.KULKARNIState of Maharashtra – AppellantVersusState Of Maharashta – Respondent

Cases Referred (16)

G.S.KULKARNI
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashta – Respondent