Disposed

Rajendra P. Shetye and Ors. v. Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2013WP/3153/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a Registrar's refusal to entertain a stay application due to non-deposit of 50% amount. Upon confirmation that the deposit was made, the court terminated the interim protection and disposed of the petition, directing the Registrar to hear main proceedings early.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no costs awarded; interim protection continued until disposal of main proceedings.

Rajendra P. Shetye and Ors. Vs Bhandari Co-Op… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp3153-13.sxw

¶2

JP CHAVAN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3153 OF 2013

¶5

Rajendra P. Shetye & ors. ... Petitioner Versus Bhandari Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Respondents (In Liquidation) and others

¶6

Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni for the petitioners

¶7

Mr. Ajay David for Respondent No.1

¶8

Ms. A. D. Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No. 4

¶9

CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 12 June 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned AGP for the State.

¶12

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21 March 2013 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioners for stay on the ground that the petitioners did not deposit 50% of the amount ,as statutorily required.

¶13

On 9 May 2013 following order came to be passed

¶14

" At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners S.O.to 12 June 2013.

¶15

2. If the petitioners deposit 50% of the amount directed to be paid by the respondent Liquidator, within a period of two weeks from today, no coercive steps will be taken against the

¶16

1/2

¶17

wp3153-13.sxw

¶18

petitioners. If the amount is not deposited then the respondent Liquidator will be free to take appropriate action."

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions, submits that all the 10 petitioners have deposited 50% of the amount. Therefore, the basis on which the impugned order is passed, now does not survive.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the Divisional Joint Registrar has kept the matter for argument tomorrow. Considering the fact that the petitioners have now deposited 50% amount, there is no impediment in the way of the Divisional Joint Registrar to consider the stay application/ the main proceedings on their on merits.

¶21

By order dated 9 May 2013, this Court had granted interim protection to the petitioners which is continued till today. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent no.1 state that to avoid any further delay, they will request the Divisional Joint Registrar to hear the main proceedings itself at an early date. On such request is made, the Divisional Joint Registrar Registrar will consider the same and endeavor to dispose of the main proceedings at the earliest. The interim protection will continue till the disposal of the main proceedings.

¶22

In view of the above position, nothing further is required to be done in the present petition which is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

(N. M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

2/2

Rajendra P. Shetye and Ors. v. Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra P. Shetye and Ors. v. Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 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

Shri. Rahul Sampat Tungar Vs Shri. Bhaurao Arjun Tungar and Anr.

Ms. Suman Singla Vs Mahavir Centre Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Suman Singla Vs Mahavir Centre Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Sanjay Tribak Salve Vs State Chief Information Commissioner, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sareeta Complex Building NO.7 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S. Mukul and Borhters and Ors.

Dayanand Sarjerao Shinde Vs Gram Panchayat, Riktoli and Ors.