JAYA KASHIRAM KAMBLE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — WP/2296/2017
Case under Constitution of India. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030061522017
Next Hearing
20th February 2017
Filing Number
WP/4844/2017
Filing Date
14-02-2017
Registration No
WP/2296/2017
Registration Date
16-02-2017
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR
Bench Type
Division
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYA KASHIRAM KAMBLE
Adv. BANSOD JAGDISH K.
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Adv. GP FOR R/1,Bajaj Anil S. 1123
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE KISHORE C. SANT , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR
FOR ORDERS - COPIES NOT SUPPLIED -CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
AWAIT NOTICES -CIVIL SIDE MATTERS
URGENT CIRCULATION -CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
DUE ADMISSION CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2017 | FOR ORDERS - COPIES NOT SUPPLIED -CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 05-03-2020 | AWAIT NOTICES -CIVIL SIDE MATTERS |
| 20-02-2017 | URGENT CIRCULATION -CIVIL |
| 07-05-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
| 06-05-2026 | DUE ADMISSION CIVIL |
Orders
The Aurangabad High Court allowed Jaya Kashiram Kamble's writ petition, awarding Rs. 4 lakhs compensation under MSEDCL's Administrative Circular No. 533 (2016) for her husband's electrocution death in 2016. The court rejected MSEDCL's argument that compensation liability belonged to the contractor, finding the circulars applicable to outsiders, and accepted petitioner's undertaking to claim only circular-based compensation, precluding future suits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Aurangabad High Court allowed Jaya Kashiram Kamble's writ petition, awarding Rs. 4 lakhs compensation under MSEDCL's Administrative Circular No. 533 (2016) for her husband's electrocution death in 2016. The court rejected MSEDCL's argument that compensation liability belonged to the contractor, finding the circulars applicable to outsiders, and accepted petitioner's undertaking to claim only circular-based compensation, precluding future suits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts