Dismissed

Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/7649/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Depositors challenged a State Government order quashing the amalgamation of two societies. The High Court held that since the amalgamated society accepted the quashing order and a settlement protecting depositors was reached, the petition was not entertained and dismissed, though interim status quo continued.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as no longer maintainable given the settlement and acceptance of the lower authority's order by the respondent society.

Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang and Ors. Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp7649.11

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7649 OF 2011

¶5

Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang & others

¶6

.. PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

& others

¶10

.. RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. N.V. Gaware, advocate for petitioners.

¶12

Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for the State.

¶13

Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶14

Mr. V.D. Sapkal, advocate holding for Mr. P.B. Vikhe Patil, advocate for respondent no. 6.

¶15

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. RESERVED ON : 29th JUNE, 2012. PRONOUNCED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

Petitioners who are depositors of respondent no. 5 / society

¶18

are challenging the order dated 5-7-2011 passed by the Hon'ble

¶19

Minister of State for Co-operation whereby revision application

¶20

preferred by respondent no. 6 came to be allowed and the order of

¶21

amalgamation of respondent nos. 4 and 5 societies has been set

¶22

wp7649.11

¶23

¶24

aside. Petitioners claim that they are the depositors of respondent no. 5 / society and consequent upon the order of amalgamation of societies their deposits have been renewed by respondent no. 4 / society. Petitioners who are members of respondent no. 5/ society are supporting the action of amalgamation which has been approved by the District Deputy Registrar. It is contended that financial position of respondent no. 4/ society was precarious and as such resolution was adopted in the general body meeting of the society to amalgamate with respondent no. 5/society. Respondent no. 4/society also approved the proposal of respondent no. 5/society for its amalgamation. After observing the formalities, respondent no. 5/society came to be amalgamated with respondent no. 4/society. The proposal of amalgamation was accepted by District Deputy Registrar and final order has been passed on 19-4-2010. Consequent upon issuance of order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, registration of respondent no. 5/society came to be cancelled. It is contended that respondent no.4/society started functioning and entire assets of respondent no. 5/society stood transferred to respondent no. 4/society. Respondent no. 4 issued communication

¶25

wp7649.11

¶26

¶27

to depositors of respondent no. 5/society and refunded amount of 25% of the deposits and rest of deposits were renewed for further period of one year. Thus, according to petitioners, the process of amalgamation is complete and the same is irreversible. Respondent no. 6 being aggrieved by the action of amalgamation presented appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar challenging the order of amalgamation however, said appeal came to be dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 14-2-2011. Respondent no. 6 presented revision application to the State Government under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Hon'ble Minister of State for Co-operation allowed the revision application and quashed and set aside order of amalgamation. Petitioners are thus challenging the order passed by the State Government revoking the order of amalgamation of two societies.

¶28

2. Respondent no. 6 was the Chairman of respondent no.

¶29

5/society and claims that resolution has been adopted without observing the procedural formalities. There are several grounds raised for objecting the amalgamation, which were taken into

¶30

wp7649.11

¶31

¶32

consideration by the Hon'ble Minister of State who allowed the revision application.

¶33

Grievance of petitioners is that since the financial condition of

¶34

respondent no.5/society is precarious said society would not be in a position to protect the financial interest of its members. According to petitioners that respondent no. 6 himself is the defaulter of respondent no. 5/society and in order to safe-guard his own interest, he is raising challenge to the order of amalgamation. Several objections are raised to the revisional order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. However, taking into consideration the subsequent developments, the petition presented by depositors and the erstwhile members of respondent no. 5/society need not be entertained. It is worth noting that respondent no. 4 /society, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister on 5-7-2011 thereby setting aside the order of amalgamation, has approached this Court by presenting Writ Petition No. 5456/2011. Respondent no. 5/society herein was impleaded as respondent no. 4 whereas respondent 6 was

¶35

impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the aforesaid petition. Parties to

¶36

wp7649.11

¶37

¶38

the aforesaid petition have entered into compromise and consent

¶39

terms are recorded. Text of the consent terms is as quoted below :

¶40

The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 are the Co-operative Societies, registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5-7-2011 passed by the Minister of State for Cooperation in Revision application No. 264 of 2011. The petition is pending in this Hon’ble Court.

¶41

That, the respondent No. 4 in its general body meeting dated 14.8.2009, vide subject No. 13, had passed a resolution that it is not in a position to repay back the amount of depositors and decided to make a request to some society to take over the affairs of respondent no. 4.

¶42

That, the respondent No.4 society accordingly on 31-10-2009 requested the petitioner society to amalgamate the respondent No. 4 society with the petitioner society. The said offer was accepted on 21-12-2009 and accordingly in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 r.w. Rule 16, the respondent No. 4 society was amalgamated with the petitioner society and the registration of the respondent No. 4 came to be cancelled. The District Deputy Registrar thereafter in exercise of the powers under the Societies Act, by order dated 19-4-2010 revoked the registration of the respondent No. 4 Society.

¶43

That the respondent No. 5 had filed appeal No. A-54 of 2010 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Nashik, however, the appeal

¶44

wp7649.11

¶45

¶46

came to be dismissed by order dated 14-2-2011.

¶47

That, the respondent No. 5 had challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing revision application No. 264 of 2011 before the State Government.

¶48

That, the Revisional Authority by order dated 5-7-2011 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 14-2-2011 and 19-4-2010.

¶49

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed in revision application No. 264 of 2011, the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court by way of writ petition No. 5456 of 2011 and vide order dated 26-7-2011, this Hon’ble Court had issued notice before admission and by way of interim order, has directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of cancellation of the registration of respondent No. 4.

¶50

That, during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have arrived at a settlement, as per the terms, mentioned herein below :-

¶51

i) That, the respondent No. 5 Appasaheb Govind Antre, has deposited the amount of Rs. 21,00,000/plus interest Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the petitioner for construction of building and purchase of instruments etc. to conduct the affairs of the respondent No. 4 society.

¶52

ii) That, the petitioner society has repaid the amount of 25% of the deposits in cash to the respective depositors and for remaining 75% amount of the deposit, the receipts have been given to the

¶53

wp7649.11

¶54

¶55

respective depositors and on maturity of the deposit amount, the concerned depositor would encash the said deposit receipt from the respondent No. 4 society. The petitioner therefore, is relieved from the liability of the all the depositors and the depositors can claim their amount on maturity from the respondent No. 4 society and respondent No. 4 undertakes to repay back the amount to the depositors on maturity and the petitioner is relieved of the said liability.

¶56

iii) That, the respondent No. 4 is free to initiate the legal proceedings hereinafter for making recovery of the arrears of the loan amount form the borrowers.

¶57

iv) That, the respondent No. 4 society’s members have passed a resolution in its annual general body meeting dated 21-11-2011 and they have authorized respondent No., 5 Shri Appasaheb Govind Antre to arrive at the terms of the settlement and also to sign the consent terms.

¶58

v) The petitioner society have also passed a resolution in its annual general body meeting dated 11-8-2011 whereby it has resolved that the amalgamation of respondent No. 4 society into the petitioner society be revoked an be treated as cancelled and the petitioner society has no objection for filling the consent terms in the pending writ petition.

¶59

vi) The petitioner has issued gold loan and Fixed Deposit loan to the members of the respondent No. 4 society. The respondent No. 4 undertakes to recover the loan amount of gold loan and fixed deposit loan as and when the same will be due for recovery from the members.

¶60

wp7649.11

¶61

¶62

vii) That, the order dated 19-4-2010 passed by the respondent No. 3 the District Deputy Registrar of amalgamating the respondent No. 4 society into the petitioner society in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 r.w. Rule 16 would stand cancelled and the petitioner would not be liable for any of the liability of the respondent No. 4 society hereinafter.

¶63

viii) The writ petition accordingly be disposed of in terms of the above mentioned consent terms which are accepted by the parties out of their free will and without any pressure on either of the parties.

¶64

. Consent terms were placed on record and in view of consent terms, respondent no. 4 herein withdrew Writ Petition No.

¶65

5456/2011. Challenge raised by respondent no. 4/society to the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister thereby setting aside order of amalgamation of two societies came to be withdrawn meaning thereby that respondent no. 5 has accepted the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Since the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister setting aside order of amalgamation has been accepted by respondent

¶66

no. 4/society with whom respondent no.5/society came to be amalgamated, the petition at the instance of members of respondent

¶67

no. 5/society need not be entertained. So far as financial interest of

¶68

petitioners is concerned, the same is being protected since

¶69

wp7649.11

¶70

¶71

respondent no. 5/society has undertaken the liability to pay back the amount to the depositors on maturity of deposits.

¶72

Respondent no. 4/society was called upon to explain as to whether said society is interested in pursuing the action of amalgamation of respondent no. 5/society. However, it has been informed that respondent no. 4/society has withdrawn the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister thereby accepting the order passed by the revisional authority quashing and setting aside action of amalgamation of two societies. In this view of the matter, petition at the instance of petitioners need not be entertained and the same stands dismissed.

¶73

Learned counsel for petitioners seeks continuation of interim order passed by this Court on 25-1-2012 for further period of eight weeks so as to enable the petitioners to avail of appellate remedy. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interim order of status quo passed by this Court on 25-1-2012 shall continue to

¶74

operate for further period of six weeks from today.

¶75

wp7649.11

¶76

¶77

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands

¶78

disposed of.

¶79

( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

¶80

dyb

Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedarnath Ramdayal Bang and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Bansi Sing Kishan Singh and Ors. Vs Narayan Harchandra Charande and Anr.

Prabhakar Mohiniraj Wable Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivraj Machanna Phapagire and Anr. Vs Ram Sambhaji Gundile and Ors.

Sanjay Dhananjay Pachpole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Suresh Dagdoba Raskar Vs Shri Balasaheb Satbhai Merchants Co. Op Bank Ltd. Kopargaon through Liquidator

Madhavrao Bhujangrao Kinhalkar Vs Ashok Shankarrao Chavan and Ors.