Disposed

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal v. Hindustan Sugars Ltd, through Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2013WP/2635/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition quashing a trial court order. The trial court had wrongly prioritized a temporary injunction application over objections regarding the suit's maintainability and valuation. This court directed the trial court to first decide applications challenging maintainability and valuation.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the trial court to decide applications challenging the suit's maintainability and valuation before considering the application for temporary injunction.

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal Vs Hindustan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

wp.2635-2013.sxw

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2635 OF 2013

¶6

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Hindustan Sugars Ltd. through Mr. Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. Drupad Patil, for Petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap with Shri Abhishek A. Patil and Shri Gaurav Sethi i/b J. Shekhar & Co., for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM: R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶13

DATE : 17^th April, 2013.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1 The writ jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order

¶16

dated 21.2.2013 passed by the learned 13^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which order the learned Judge has decided that the application below Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction would be taken up for decision first prior to the objections which have been raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the suit vide Exhibits 52D, 53D,54D and 55D.

¶17

¶18

wp.2635-2013.sxw

¶19

2 The suit in question has been filed by the respondent no.5 seeking a declaration that the requisition dated 25.11.2012 for

¶20

requisitioning the special general body is null and void-ab-initio and for a declaration that the meeting dated 3.2.2013 on the basis of the said requisition is null and void-ab-initio.

¶21

3 It is in the said suit that the defendant i.e. petitioner herein has filed the aforesaid four applications. Out of the said four applications, two applications i.e. Exhibits 53D and 54D question the maintainability of the suit and Exhibit 55D is in respect of the valuation of the suit. Insofar as Exhibit 52D is concerned, the defendants have raised an objection to the plaintiff being represented by Advocate Shri Kakade. Since the said objections were raised on behalf of the defendants and since it was the contention of the defendants that the said objections be dealt with at the threshold before considering the application Exhibit 5 the trial court has by the impugned order dated 21.2.2013 has overruled the objection of the defendants that their applications be heard at the first instance and has decided that the application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction would be taken up for hearing at the first instance. As indicated above, it is the said above order dated 21.2.2013 which is taken exception to by way of above

wp.2635-2013.sxw

writ petition.

4 The petitioner by way of prayer clause (b) of the above petition

¶26

has also sought a direction to be issued to the trial court to decide the said applications exhibits 52D,53E,54D and 55D prior to the application for temporary injunction being decided. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 i.e. the original plaintiff on instructions states that the respondent no.1 has no objection if the applications Exhibits 53,54 and 55D are tried at the first instance prior to the application for temporary injunction Exhibit-5 being considered by the trial court.

¶27

5 Out of the said three applications, application Exhibit-55D touches upon the valuation of the suit, since the jurisdiction of the court concerned would depend upon the valuation, the said application Exhibit 55D be taken by the trial court at the first instance and decided and in the event the trial court comes to the conclusion that even on the basis of the corrected valuation, it would have jurisdiction it would then consider the application exhibit 53D which is an application filed invoking Section 9A order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter application below exhibit 54D. However, the said three applications i.e. Exhibits 55D,54D and 53D would have to be decided prior to the

¶28

¶29

wp.2635-2013.sxw

¶30

consideration of the application exhibit-5 to which the respondent no.1 is agreeable.

¶31

6 In the event the trial court has to consider the application exhibits 54D and 55D after deciding application exhibit 53D, it would be open for the plaintiff to make an application invoking Section 9A (2).

¶32

7 Insofar as the application exhibit 52D is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Godbole states that the same may be kept pending and the defendants would file an application at the appropriate time in the Trial Court for the said application to be considered.

¶33

8 In view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, it is not necessary to consider the impugned order dated 21.2.2013 on merits, and subject to the direction as aforesaid the writ petition to stand disposed of.

¶34

9 The trial court to consider the application below exhibit 53D by 10^th July, 2013.

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal v. Hindustan Sugars Ltd, through Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal v. Hindustan Sugars Ltd, through Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke 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

Deepak Ramesh Mehta Vs Vasudeo Kishan Kadam

Sou. Kamalabai Mahadeo Mirgane Vs Shri. Gokuldas Ambadas Shelake and Anr.

Shri. Govind Genu Kalokhe Vs Shri. Ramdas Tukaram Kalohe and Anr.

Bhagwan Gajanan Kokre and Anr. Vs Maruti Ramchandra Kokre and Ors.

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak Sangh, through Managing Committee Member and Treasurer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Chairman / Secretary and Ors. Vs Parsik Paradise Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Secretary Chairman and Ors.