Two review petitions challenging a prior order that excluded trading in fertilizers, seeds, and pesticides from the definition of Direct Agricultural Loans under a Scheme. The Court upheld the impugned order, dismissing the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 77 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8141 OF 2011
Chandrakant Mahadev Jadhav .. Petitioner Vs The Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents
WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 78 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8142 OF 2011
Shivaji Krishna Mali .. Petitioner Vs The Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents
R.V. Bansode for the Petitioners
N.R. Prajapati for Respondent - Union of India
CORAM : D. D. SINHA &
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ
DATE : 13th JULY, 2012.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. It is contended that the interpretation arrived at by this Court while interpreting Clause 3.1 which deals with Direct Agricultural Loan is not consistent with the provisions of the said Clause of the Scheme. It is further contended that trading in fertilizers, seeds and pesticides also fall within the ambit of Direct Agricultural Loans. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned
Pg 1 of 2
order is to be reviewed.
3. Learned counsel for the Union of India has supported the impugned order.
4. Perused the Clause 3.1 as well as the impugned order dated 21.03.2012. This Court, after taking into consideration the pros and cons so far as Section 3.1 is concerned, has clearly observed that the business activity of the Review Petitioners i.e trading in fertilizers, seeds and pesticides does not fall within the ambit of the concept of Direct Loan stipulated in Clause 3.1 of the Scheme. In that view of the mater, no case is made out for interference. Review Petitions are dismissed.
[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ]
[ D. D. SINHA, J ]z
jfoanz vkacsjdj
Pg 2 of 2
Chandrakant Mahadev Jadhav
Shivaji Krishna Mali
The Union of India
D. D. SINHA
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
