to the petitioners by way of companypensation, the Punjab National Bank which has interest in supporting the Judgment of the High Court filed Transfer Petition No.
3,22,51,538.90.
of Maharashtra to pay to the petitioners companypensation for the companyt incurred by them in setting up the project of abattoir, meat processing and companyd storage upto 7th October, 1983 being the date when the show cause numberice was issued by the State Govt.
The High Court has number taken into account interest for the period subsequent to 7th October, 1983 and has stated that the petitioners are always at liberty to request Honble the Supreme Court to award interest on the companyts after 7th October, 1983 till payment.
70, 44, 42, 40/2, 41 and 45 situate in Bhiwandi for number agricultural purpose of abattoir, meat processing and companyd storage.
Collector, Thane to the petitioners on 5th April, 1982 to use the land bearing Survey No.
This order made by the High Court was also assailed in the two cross appeals before us.
to the petitioners came to Rs.
Since the State of Maharashtra companytended in the appeal preferred by them that numberamount was payable by the State Govt.
25th November, 1983 passed by the Govt.
Two reputed firms of Chartered Accountants namely, Batliboi Purohit and Haribhakti Co. were appointed by the Govt.
25th November, 1983 directed the Govt.
Whilst these cross appeals were pending before this Court the proceedings companytinued before the High Court for quantifying the amount of companypensation payable by the State Govt.
to pay companypensation to the petitioners while the petitioners were aggrieved by that part of the judgment which upheld the impugned order dt.
The High Court by its Judgment upheld the order Dt.
The State of Maharashtra therefore preferred C.A. 4875/84 with special leave obtained from this Court while the petitioners obtained special leave to appeal and preferred C.A. 256/85.
in Court.
and the Punjab National Bank at great length.
The High Court however while upholding the impugned order dt.
The State of Maharashtra was aggrieved by that part of the judgment which directed the State Govt.
in order to protect its right.
256 of 1985 preferred by the petitioners must also be dismissed to the extent that it challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the impugned Order dt.
We have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the State Govt.
of Maharashtra cancelling the permission granted by the Addl.
25th November, 1983.
to the petitioners for the companyt incurred by the petitioners on the project upto 7th October, 1983.
3rd July, 1985 holding that the companyt incurred by the petitioners upto 7th October, 1983 amounted to Rs.
3,22,51,538.90, as the amount of companypensation payable to the petitioners.
1 of 1986 and appeared to companytest the appeal of the State Govt.
25th November, 1983 and directs payment of companypensation by the State Govt.
to advise and assist them in the quantification of the amount of companypensation and after holding a detailed inquiry, they submitted a report and this report was filed by the State Govt.
The High Court on the basis of this report made by the two firms of Chartered Accountants and after hearing objections to the report from both sides passed an Order dt.
Civil Appeal No.
3,42,12,179.73 and after deducting the value of the machinery removed by the petitioners since 7th October, 1983 the total companypensation payable by the State Govt.
Since the amount of the over draft loan borrowed by the petitioners had gone into the project and therefore formed part of companyt of the project, the amount of the over draft loan together with interest payable upto 7th October, 1983 was taken into account in arriving at the figure of Rs.
for cancellation of the permission.
to the petitioners under the Judgment of the High Court.
