Disposed

Sahayog Sahakari Griharachana Santha Maryadit Jalochi v. Ashok Lalasaheb Jagtap and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2013WP/1768/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged an order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court granting an injunction. The High Court did not go into merits but directed the Co-operative Court to dispose of the underlying dispute within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Co-operative Court, Pune to dispose of dispute No. 80 of 2007 within six months.

Sahayog Sahakari Griharachana Santha Maryadit… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-1768.10.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1768 OF 2010

¶5

Sahayog Sahakari Griharachana Santha Maryadit Jalochi, Baramati, Pune

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Ashok Lalasaheb Jagtap & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.R.S. Ghadge i/by Mr.A.S. Desai for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 21 JUNE 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Pune dated 10 September 2009 whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed and the Petitioner was restrained from disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.1 and carrying out any construction thereon.

¶14

The Respondent No.1 has instituted a dispute in the Cooperative Court, Pune praying for a declaration and injunction. In the said dispute,an application for interim relief was filed before the learned Co-operative Court, Pune. The learned Co-operative Court, Pune, after considering the material on record, by order dated 21 August 2007 rejected the interim application. As against this order, the Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Pune. The Appellate Court, after considering the material on record and the arguments advanced, came to the conclusion that the

¶15

ppn 2 wp-1768.10.doc

¶16

Respondent No.1 had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in his favour. Accordingly, appeal was allowed and the order of injunction was granted.

¶17

I have perused the order under challenge. The order has given cogent reasons as to why the injunction was needed to be granted. The order is in operation since the year 2009 and though the Petition is pending since the year 2010, there is no ad-interim relief granted in the Petition. Learned Counsels for the parties state that in view of the above position, instead of going into the merits of the matter, it will be appropriate if the dispute itself is directed to be disposed at an early date, if not already disposed of.

¶18

The learned Counsels for the parties states that they are not aware of the exact date in the dispute. In the circumstances, the Petition is disposed of by directing the Co-operative Court, Pune to make an endeavor to dispose of the dispute No.80 of 2007 within a period of six months from today, if not already disposed of.

¶19

Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶20

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Sahayog Sahakari Griharachana Santha Maryadit Jalochi v. Ashok Lalasaheb Jagtap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahayog Sahakari Griharachana Santha Maryadit Jalochi v. Ashok Lalasaheb Jagtap and Anr.

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

Ganpat Mahadev Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs, Kapil Ganpat Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shir. Nagnth Praladh Yadav Vs Shri. Sudhir Ashok Randive and Ors.

Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust, through Managing Trustee, Shantinath Jangonda Patil Vs Shri. Mahaveer Jangonda Patil and Anr.

Pandharinath Bhikaji Telge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Babaji Mhadlekar Vs the General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Smt. Saraswati Malwiya Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.