Dismissed

M/S. Janata Co-Operative Dairy Society Limited, through Shri. Ali Mohammad Noor Mohammad Kadiwal v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2013WP/6963/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-maintainability as the petitioner had an alternative remedy available. The court noted the status quo order had already been vacated by the Trial Court and the petitioner was absent on the last date.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner has alternative remedy.

M/S. Janata Co-Operative Dairy Society… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/3

¶2

(WP6963.13)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6963 OF 2013

¶4

M/s. Janata Co-operative Dairy Society Limited

¶5

…. Petitioner.

¶6

v/s

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶8

….. Respondents.

¶9

None for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Karnik for Respondent No.2. Mrs. M.P. Thakkar, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Atul Damle for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM: V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶11

DATE: 12TH AUGUST, 2013

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

None appears for the Petitioner. Even in the morning when the matter was called out, neither the Petitioner nor its counsel was present.

¶14

By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-

¶15

“a) In view of the circumstances as stated herein above, the Petitioners Pray for the

¶16

2/3

¶17

(WP6963.13)

¶18

issue of appropriate writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order in the matter in order to do real and complete justice according to law.

¶19

b) Be pleased to direct the Hon'ble District Judge, Thane, to conduct inquiry in the matter and file report before this Hon'ble Court within stipulated time.

¶20

c) Be pleased to declare that the status quo order dated 09.01.2013, passed by 6^th Civil Judge (S.D.), Thane in Special Civil Suit No.757 of 2012, was obtained by the Respondent no.3, fraudulently.

¶21

d) Be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1, to conduct departmental inquiry and take necessary action against the person who is committed misconduct in the proceeding of Special Civil Suit No. 757 of 2012, as per the report to be submitted by the Hon'ble District Judge, Thane, in the instant petition .

¶22

e) Any other and further relief which may be just, fair and proper as may appear proper to this Hon'ble Court to do real and complete justice in the matter be provided.”

¶23

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner who is original Defendant No.3 in Civil Suit filed by Respondent No.3 herein was served with notice informing him that the matter would appear before the 7^th Court. It is the case of the Petitioner that the matter, in fact, appeared before the 6^th Court and an order of status quo was passed.

¶24

3/3

¶25

(WP6963.13)

¶26

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the order of status quo was obtained fraudulently by Respondent No.3. We are informed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 that, in fact, thereafter, the order of status quo was vacated and against the said order an appeal was filed in this Court and this Court was pleased to continue the order of status quo by order dated 07/08/2013. On the last date, we had asked the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner to take instructions whether the Petitioner is willing to withdraw the Petition since, prima faice, Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, today, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Petitioner have not remained present.

¶27

Taking into consideration the relief claimed by the Petitioner, in our view, this Petition is not maintainable. Hence, Petition will have to be dismissed since the Petitioner has an alternative remedy available. Even otherwise, the order of status quo which was initially granted was vacated by the Trial Court. Hence, there is no merit in the averments made by the Petitioner in the Petition.

¶28

5. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶30

bdp

M/S. Janata Co-Operative Dairy Society Limited, through Shri. Ali Mohammad Noor Mohammad Kadiwal v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Janata Co-Operative Dairy Society Limited, through Shri. Ali Mohammad Noor Mohammad Kadiwal v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept 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

Bank of Baroda Vs Jayant R.Kanani

Sau. Shehnaz Tanveer Usmani Vs Hameeda Mohammed Husain and Ors.

East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shri. Parshuram Rajaram Bhagat and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Rohit Ashok Koli Vs the Division Caste Scrutiny Validity Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik and Ors.

Paras Motor Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha Ltd, Nashik, through Chairman, Parasmal Bansilal Bora Vs the Collector, Nashik and Anr.