Allowed

National Furniture Works Thr Proprietor v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2013WP/9193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad heard two connected writ petitions regarding recovery actions by a cooperative bank. After the bank undertook to follow statutory procedure, the court allowed the petitions under a specific prayer clause, permitting continued legal recovery measures while directing disposal without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed in terms of prayer clause (B); bank may still take legal recourse for recovery; no order as to costs.

National Furniture Works Thr Proprietor Vs the State of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P.9193.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9193 OF 2012

¶4

National Furniture Works

¶5

Through Proprietor ...PETITIONER

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1.The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

...

¶9

 Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for Petitioner
 Smt. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to3
 Shri T.G. Gaikwad,Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 &5

¶10

...

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 9195 OF 2012

¶13

Suresh Dhenu Chavan ...PETITIONER

¶14

 VERSUS

¶15

1.The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

...

¶17

 Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for Petitioner
 Smt. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to3
 Shri T.G. Gaikwad,Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 &5

¶18

...

¶19

CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

¶20

DATE : 04.03.2013

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

1. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5

¶23

states that respondent-bank has already undertaken to

¶24

follow the due procedure as prescribed under the

¶25

2 W.P.9193.12

¶26

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rules
thereunder, for recovery of the amount mentioned in
the petition and further states that similar statement
is made in another writ petition.

¶27

2.In view of this, writ petitions stand allowed in
terms of prayer clause (B). However, this would not
preclude the respondent-bank from taking recourse to
measures as provided under law for recovery of amount
mentioned in the petition.

¶28

3.Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No
order as to costs.

¶29

 Sd/-
 [ SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. ]

¶30

MTK

National Furniture Works Thr Proprietor v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Furniture Works Thr Proprietor v. the State of Mah 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

Gopal Ramraj Jametia and Anr. Vs Balasaheb Nathaji Shinde and Ors.

Baburao Laxman Muley Vs Sk Khairu Sk Dada and Anr.

Keshav Murlidhar Kulkarni and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Baban Bapu Khot Vs the Collector, Osmanabad and Ors.

Suresh Dhenu Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Balu Laxman Kurhe Vs Balasaheb Madhav Dhawale