Allowed

M/S Samta Magasvargiya Bakery Utpadak Audyogik Sah. Sanstha Maryadit, Parbhani Thr Chairman v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2014WP/1992/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, directed the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) to grant four installment payments to a backward class society for the partial payment of an industrial plot allotment fee. The court restrained MIDC from taking coercive action or revoking the allotment until the proposal is considered, while noting that the society must

What did the court decide?

Directing MIDC to grant four installments and refrain from coercive action until the proposal is considered; Society allowed to deposit amount over time to retain plot.

M/S Samta Magasvargiya Bakery Utpadak Audyogik Sah… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1992.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1992 OF 2014

¶5

M/s Samta Magasvargiya Bakery Utpadak Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Parbhani .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. M. B. Sandanshiv, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, AGP for the State. Mr. S. S. Dande, advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 16th APRIL, 2014.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Petitioner is a society formed by the business persons belonging to

¶12

backward class community. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, considering the application tendered by society, allotted plot bearing no. 11 situate within the premises of Parbhani industrial area in the year 2009. The society although deposited initial amount, failed to deposit price of the plot amounting to Rs. 19,29,792/-. As such, notice of recovery has been issued by MIDC on 15.10.2012 which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

¶13

wp1992.14

¶14

¶15

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, we are of the view that petitioner - society needs to deposit the amount as demanded by the Corporation, if the society intends to retain the industrial plot. Impugned notice directs the petitioner to deposit the amount within a period of fifteen days. However, although petitioner - society has not deposited the amount as directed in the notice, no further action has yet been initiated by respondent - MIDC.

¶16

Petitioner - society has tendered affidavit-in-reply undertaking to deposit sum of Rs. 4,82,448/- on or before 15.07.2014 being the first installment. The society has further undertaken to deposit second installment of equal amount on or before 15.10.2014 and, third and fourth installments of equal amount on or before 15.01.2015 and 15.04.2015 respectively.

¶17

Considering the fact that the society consists of members belonging

¶18

to socially backward community, MIDC shall consider the proposal tendered by petitioner positively and shall grant four installments as requested by petitioners. Respondent - MIDC is directed to take appropriate decision considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Respondent - MIDC shall not take coercive action against the society until

¶19

wp1992.14

¶20

¶21

consideration of the proposal. It would be open for MIDC to put default clause and prescribe that in the event of default in payment of any of the

¶22

installments, allotment of plot shall stand revoked.

¶23

With directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands

¶25

disposed of.

¶26

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

M/S Samta Magasvargiya Bakery Utpadak Audyogik Sah. Sanstha Maryadit, Parbhani Thr Chairman v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Samta Magasvargiya Bakery Utpadak Audyogik Sah. Sanstha Maryadit, Parbhani Thr Chairman 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramilabai Pralhadrao Pattewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Mainoddin Maheboobsab Qureshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Waman Icchu Dhodya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S A.C. Kothari Engineers and Contractors Vs the State of Maharashtrea and Others

Chhabai Govindrao Katkar Vs the Collector, Osmanabad and Others

Avinash Uttamrao Welhal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.