Disposed

Dr. Mohanbhai I. Patel and 4 Ors. v. the State of Mahatrashtra and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2006WP/3006/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Writ Bench granted limited protection by directing the Co-operative Court to defer a dispute's hearing until 12th December 2006. This allows member election proceedings, ordered by an earlier judgment, to complete and enables the petitioners to approach the Single Judge seeking a stay on the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the Co-operative Court to defer the hearing of Dispute 320 of 2005 until 12th December, 2006.

Dr. Mohanbhai I. Patel and 4 Ors. Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O. O. C. J.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3006 OF 2006

¶5

Dr. Mohanbhai I. Patel & Ors. Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Shekhar Shetye with Mr. V.B. Amin i/b M/s. B. Amin & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Mamta Sadh, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶12

8^th December, 2006.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

By an order dated 13^th November, 2006, this Court while confirming the order of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies by which he appointed an Administrator in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 77A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 issued directions for the appointment of a committee consisting of three members in place of the Administrator. The only ground on which the Administrator was appointed was the failure of the managing committee to execute a bond which is a mandatory requirement under Section 73-(1AB).

¶15

¶16

The Court has been moved in the present proceedings since the co-operative society (the Fourth Respondent) has filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court against the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent is the complainant at whose behest an order was passed by the Deputy Registrar appointing an Administrator. The Third Respondent had intervened before the Court in the earlier proceedings. The grievance of the Petitioners, who are members of the Co-operative Society is that the dispute filed by the co-operative society is to be heard by the Co-operative Court and there will be no effective representation of the cooperative society at the present stage until elections are held in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 13^th November, 2006. This Court had directed that elections be held within a period of two months from the issuance of a corrigendum by the Deputy Registrar. The corrigendum has been issued on 28^th November, 2006 and the elections will be consequently completed before the end of January 2007. At this stage, the relief which has been sought is a direction to the Co-operative Court to defer the hearing of Dispute 320 of 2005. On 21^st November, 2006 the Cooperative Court had listed the dispute for final hearing on 1^st

¶17

¶18

December, 2006.

¶19

The relief that has been sought in the writ petition cannot be appropriately granted by this Court for more than one reason, in the present proceedings. For one thing, the disputant before the Co-operative Court is a co-operative society, the Fourth Respondent herein, and not the Petitioners who are only members of the society. Secondly, a Learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G. Karnik) had on 10^th July, 2006 issued directions calling upon the Co-operative Court to dispose of the dispute within a period of six months. Therefore, in the very nature of things, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction the effect thereof would be at divergence with the orders passed by My Learned Brother, Mr. Justice D.G. Karnik. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that an application has now in fact been moved before the Learned Single Judge by the Fourth Respondent. However, it has been stated that the Co-operative Court has placed the matter for final hearing today and in the absence of even a limited protection, the Dispute before the Cooperative Court may well be concluded without effective representation on behalf of the Co-operative Society. In order to

¶20

¶21

obviate the situation, it will be appropriate that this Court grants a limited protection, to be operative until 12^th December, 2006 so as to enable the co-operative society to make an appropriate application before the Learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, the Learned Judge of the Co-operative Court is requested to defer the hearing of the Dispute until 12^th December, 2006 so that in the meantime the application referred to hereinabove can be moved before the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 1446 of 2006. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dr. Mohanbhai I. Patel and 4 Ors. v. the State of Mahatrashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mohanbhai I. Patel and 4 Ors. v. the State of Mahatrashtra and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Universal Enterprises. Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Britto Charles and 33 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Abdul Rashid A.R. Yusuf and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 43 Ors.

Shreeji Builders and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

M/S. J.B. Boda and Co.Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs J.B. Boda and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Employees Union and Anr.

Kishor Nayaran Vartak Vs the Sangli Zilla Kamgar Co.Op. Bank Ltd. and 6 Ors.