Disposed

Mr. Amol a. Gaikwad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC31 Jan 2012WP/2416/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition concerned a challenge by society members to a general body resolution authorizing redevelopment. The court held that an alternative efficacious remedy exists in the Co-operative Court, precluding the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed accordingly with liberty to pursue other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to pursue other appropriate remedy; all questions left open.

Mr. Amol a. Gaikwad and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2012)

WP-2416-11

Mlns

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2011

¶6

Mr.Amol A.Gaikwad & Anr....Petitioner
Vs

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents

¶8

Ms Seema Sarnaik advocate for petitioner.
Mr.B.B.Sharma A.G.P for Respondent no.1 to 3.
Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, senior advocate along with
Mr.Prashant Jadhav for respondent no.4.
Mr.Sandesh Patil i/by Mr.Pavan Patil, advocate
for respondent no.5

¶9

CORAM :A.M.KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR JJ,.

¶10

 DATED : 31st JANUARY, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1.Heard counsel for the parties. In our opinion

¶13

the relief claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be
taken forward in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.
Considering the fact that the petitioners are members

¶14

of respondent no.4-Society, which inturn by General

¶15

Body resolution has already decided to redevelop
building no.7 of the Society situated at Bandra,unless
the petitioners were to challenge the Resolution
passed by the General Body which authorised the

¶16

Mlns 2 WP-2416-11

¶17

managing committee to execute the contract with
respondent no.6 they cannot succeed in the reliefs.
Moreso, the challenge to Resolution of the General
Body can be pursued before the Co-operative Court.
Since the petitioners have alternative efficacious
remedy the question of exercising writ jurisdiction
does not arise.

¶18

2.Thepetitionisdisposedof

¶19

with liberty to the petitioners to pursue other
appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. All
questions raised in this petition are left open to be
decided in the proposed proceedings.

¶20

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

Mr. Amol a. Gaikwad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Amol a. Gaikwad and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 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

Kamladeo Dayaldas Ahuja Vs Regisrar, Co-Op. Housing Societies and 5 Ors.

Raoso Narasgonda Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

Shri. Sanjiv Shankarrao Thorat Vs the District Supply Officer, Dist. Sangli and Ors.

Shri. Mahadeo Balbhim Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vasant Bapusaheb Magdum Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Ors.

Chitodia Adivasi Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Social Justice and Special Assist. and Ors.