Dismissed

Urmila Govindprasad Agarwal and Ors. v. the Nashik Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2007WP/407/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition. The Court observed that despite the petitioners claiming non-receipt, a certified copy of the impugned order was produced. The Court informed the petitioners that a revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was the available remedy against the order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected.

Urmila Govindprasad Agarwal and Ors. Vs the Nashik… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 WRIT PETITION NO.407 OF 2007
 ------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
 or directions and Registrar’s :
 orders. :

¶2

 ------------------------------------:------------------------------------
 Mr.S.S. Shah for petitioners.
 Mr.H.S. Venegaonkar for respondent
 No.1.
 -----
CORAM : H.L GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
 V.M.KANADE, J.
DATED : 18th January 2007
 P.C. :
 1. Heard the learned Counsel
 for the parties.
 2. The proceedings were
 initiated against the petitioners
 for recovery of the amounts that
 were due under Section 101 of the
 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
 Act, 1960. The petitioners came
 to this Court on an earlier
 occasion and this Court permitted
 the petitioners to contest the
 notice that was given and to raise
 all contentions in those
 proceedings. That order was

¶3

 passed on 13th July 2006. The
 Petition is filed by stating that
 a copy of the order passed

¶4

 thereafter is not received.

¶5

 3. Mr.Venegaonkar appearing
 for respondent No.1 has shown us a
 certified copy of the order dated
 28th September 2006. It is not

¶6

 possible to accept the contention
 of the petitioners that they could

¶7

 not get the copy of that order.

¶8

 4. A remedy is available

¶9

 against that order to file a

¶10

 Revision under Section 154. It

¶11

 will be open to the petitioners to

¶12

 resort to the same, if they so

¶13

 desire.

¶14

 5. Petition is rejected.

¶15

(ACTING C.J.)

¶16

 (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Urmila Govindprasad Agarwal and Ors. v. the Nashik Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Govindprasad Agarwal and Ors. v. the Nashik Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratiba Naitthani Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sanjay G. Agaldare. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kirit Somaiya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rashmi Dipak Vegda Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalyan - Ullasnagar Tempo Taxi Vikram Owners Association and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mehboob Dawoodsaab Shaikh Vs the Commissioner of Police, Solapur