Disposed

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode v. Robert Vasant Gaikwad and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2011WP/6497/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a writ petition challenging an interim stay order in a trust application. The Court directed parties to appear before the District Judge to have the pending application decided on merits, ordered maintenance of status quo, restricted policy decisions and withdrawals by trust management, and mandated expeditious disposal of the main application. No separate participation w

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Parties to appear on 23.11.2011 before District Court for decision of Exh.7. Status quo maintained; withdrawals restricted to statutory dues and day-to-day management. Suit to be de

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode Vs Robert Vasant Gaikwad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.6497/11

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6497 OF 2011

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for for the petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Gatne, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 9
Mr.N.E.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent Nos.
10,12,16,20, 13 and 15.
Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent Nos.11,14,17
and 20.

¶10

Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for Respondent Nos.18 and 19.

¶11

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶12

 Date : 22.11.2011.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The petitioner has impugned the order passed below Exh.7 and Exh.22 in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Mr.Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner does not press the present petition to the extent of an order passed below Exh.22 and shall assail the same in independent proceeding as objection is being taken by Mr.Gatne, learned counsel for the Respondents that as against the said order, the Revision is maintainable and the present Writ Petition is being heard only to the extent of an order passed below Exh.7.

¶17

¶18

W.P.No.6497/11

¶19

Perusal of the order passed below Exh.7, it is manifest that the said order is an ad-interim order. The said Exh.7 is not conclusively decided. The operative part of the order below Exh.7 reads thus :

¶20

"1) The impugned order dt.4.5.11 passed by the A.C.C., Ahmednagar while deciding application No.21/97 and 13/01 is stayed until further order.

¶21

2) The opponents are directed not to interfere with the functions, administrations and duties performed by the secretary Robert Gaikwad, Chairman Sujit Jadhav and Vice Chairman Rajan Patole and other trustees of the said trust until further order.

¶22

3) Issue show cause notice to the opponents 1,2 and 5 to 13 as to why the interim order of injunction shall not be confirmed till the final decision of the trust application No.1/2011. Notice returnable on 30.8.2011. "

¶23

Though the learned counsels advanced their submissions, I am not recording the same here. As the order is dated 30.7.2011 and the same is ad-interim in nature, the application Exh.7 is to be conclusively decided and further on 30.8.11, this Court had passed an order directing the parties to maintain statusquo as on that date, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the parties to appear before the District Judge, where the said Trust Application No. 1/2011 is pending and get the said application Exh.7 decided on its

¶24

¶25

W.P.No.6497/11

¶26

own merits. It is stated that before the District Judge, the next date is fixed on 23.11.2011. All the parties in the present Writ Petition are served and they are the parties before the District Court. The learned counsel for respective parties on instructions, undertake that the parties would appear before the District Court on 23.11.2011. In view of that separate notice would not be necessary for hearing on Exh.7 in Trust Application No.1/2011.

¶27

The order of statusquo passed on 30.8.2011 and continued from time to time shall remain in force till decision on Exh.7. Moreover, the parties managing the Trust shall not take any policy decision, shall not make any new appointments. So also shall not withdraw the amounts except the amounts for the payment of statutory dues including wages, salaries of the employees and amount required for day today management of the Trust.

¶28

All points are kept open.

¶29

The Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions and observations. No costs.

¶30

The District Judge shall decide the application Exh.7 in Trust Application No.1/2011, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of their

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.6497/11

¶33

appearance i.e. 23.11.2011.

¶34

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶35

Dt.22.11.2011. asp/office/wp6497.11

¶36

¶37

W.P.No.6497/11

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode v. Robert Vasant Gaikwad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode v. Robert Vasant Gaikwad 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

Kishan Rajaram Kadam Lrs Dagadabai Kisan Kadam and Ors. Vs Ranjanabai Suryabhan Mahadik and Ors.

Vijaykumr Bhuprao Shete and Anr. Vs Manohar Keshavrao Patil and Ors.

Hira Gurdal Chavan and Ors. Vs Sharad Kesharlal Kasat

Namdeo Gyanoba Kakade and Ors. Vs Mokshada Namdeo Kakade

Shirish Haribhau Waghmode Vs Robert Vasant Gaikwad and Ors.

The Supdtd. Engineer Mah. State Electricity Dist. Co. and Ors. Vs Milind Dashrath Jadhav