Dismissed

Ketki Jimmy Unwalla v. the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, MUMBAI-3 and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014WP/2279/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order of the Competent Authority concerning a deemed conveyance application and a maintenance application. The High Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order, allowed the petitioner to raise the maintainability issue before the Competent Authority, and kept all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is disposed of; no order passed on the maintenance application; all contentions of the petitioner kept open.

Ketki Jimmy Unwalla Vs the District Deputy Registrar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

(WP L 627 of 2014)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) No. 627 OF 2014

¶6

Keki Jimmy Unwalla ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Mumbai -3 & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Jimmy Pochkhanwalla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Cama with Aharamazda Postvala i/b. Vigil Juris for the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Counsel a/w.Chirag Modi a/w. Ms. Dilpreen Kaur and Ms. Janvi Jogatar i/b. Divya Shah Associates for Respondent No.2

¶11

¶12

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2

¶16

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Competent Authority on an application filed by the Society seeking certain reliefs and directions directing Respondent No.4 -Original Applicant to produce certain documents.

¶17

Brief facts are that Respondent No.2 Society had filed an application under section 11 of the Co-operative Societies Act before the Competent Authority seeking a deemed conveyance. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the property. The Petitioner herein has claimed that he is the legal heir of the said original owners who had expired. The Society, therefore filed an application for amendment the

1/3

(WP L 627 of 2014)

application and by adding prayer clause A(i) to the said application, which reads as under.

¶22

“A (i) this Hon'ble Registrar be pleased to direct the Opponent No.4 to establish and/or prove that the Opponent Nos.1 to 3 have expired and that the Opponent No.4 is the only legal heir and entitled to the said Property as owner thereof.”

¶23

The grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner being the legal heir of the owner, a deemed conveyance could not be granted in favour of the Society -Respondent No.2. Secondly, it is submitted that the Petitioner cannot be made to produce the documents which are required by the Society. Thirdly, it is submitted that the prayer A(i) which has now been sought by the Petitioner, cannot be decided by the Competent Authority since it is not within his jurisdiction to decide the said issue.

¶24

In our view, since the Petitioner has filed this petition, challenging the interlocutory order passed by the Competent Authority on an application dated 14^th October, 2013 filed by the Society seeking amendment of the prayers, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order. The Petitioner can always challenge the maintainability of the application before the Competent Authority and raise the said issue. If such issue is raised, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. In any case, it is always open for the Petitioner to challenge the final order that may be passed under section 11 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, we cannot entertain this issue, which are raised by the Petitioner in this petition.

2/3

(WP L 627 of 2014)

Vaishali Tikam

The Petitioner also has challenged the order which is passed in his application seeking inspection of the original agreements. According to the Society the said application is granted. According to the Petitioner, it is not granted. For the same reasons which are raised in the earlier application, we are not inclined to grant any order. All contentions raised by the Petitioner in this petition are kept open. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

3/3

Ketki Jimmy Unwalla v. the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, MUMBAI-3 and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketki Jimmy Unwalla v. the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, MUMBAI-3 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

Moinuddin Shamsuddin Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Moinuddin Shamsuddin Bagwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hemant B. Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Maruti Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Rashid Son of Arshad Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Santosh Maruti Mane