1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 513 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6348 OF 1997 Mr. Maruti Bhanudas Kamble ... Applicant V/s Bajaj Auto Limited ......Respondent. --- Mr.Nitin Kulkarni, for the Applicant. Ms. Neha Mehta i/b M/s Bodhnawala & Co., for Defendant No.2. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17 th FEBRUARY 2010 . P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This application has been filed for clarification/modification of the Order dated 25.6.2009 passed by this Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that this court had directed the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of his 2 claim. However, it is not clarified whether this amount which is to be paid the Applicant were entitled during the period after the order is passed or whether the said amount to be paid in lump sum towards compensation.. 3. In my view, the Order itself is self-explanatory and in paragraph-14 of the said Order this Court has already given reasons why the said amount has to be paid. In the said order in paragraph-14 this court has clarified that the said amount is towards full and final settlement of his claim. It is apparent therefore that that amount of Rs.8,00,000/- has to be spread over the period from the date from termination till the date of the Order. The Applicant is therefore not liable to pay the tax in lump sum but on the amount which is spread over in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Civil Application is disposed in the aforesaid terms. [V.M. KANADE, J.]