Dismissed

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh v. the President, the Board of Liquidator, Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sah. Bank Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014WP/3629/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the nonpayment of gratuity difference, the Bombay High Court held that an effective alternate remedy existed. Consequently, the court found it was not a fit case for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition while keeping substantive claims open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of and dismissed as not a fit case for writ jurisdiction; merits kept open.

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp3629.13.sxw

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3629 OF 2013

¶5

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh	...	Petitioners
V/s.
The President,
The Board of Liquidator,
Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sah. Bank Ltd.	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. Neel G. Helekar for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Inamdar for the respondent no.2.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶8

7th October , 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to respondents to release payment of difference of gratuity amount. The Counsel appearing for respondent has referred to paras 7 and 8 of the reply filed. It is submitted that petitioner has efficacious remedy to resort to alternate appropriate proceedings under the payment of Gratuity Act. It is further contended that the liability of the Bank is 5527.35 lacs. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of provisions of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, leave is to be granted to take appropriate steps against the liquidator. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies is authorised to grant leave. Unless leave is granted, the petitioner would not be in a position to take appropriate steps for recovering the dues from the liquidator.

¶11

wp3629.13.sxw

¶12

2/2

¶13

In the facts of the case we find that petitioner may resort to alternate remedy. We do not find this to be a fit case to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Keeping all issues on merits of the claim of the petition open, writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶15

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶16

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh v. the President, the Board of Liquidator, Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sah. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh v. the President, the Board of Liquidator, Solapur Nagari Audyogik Sah. Bank Ltd.

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

Sarsenapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissoner of Sugar, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Mahesh Balwant Arjunwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Irgonda Melappa Biradar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Union of India Thruogh General Manager and Anr. Vs Rajesh a. Bharte and Ors.

Shri. Peres Pezarkar Vs the Shipping Corporation of India and Ors.

Vishnu Chandrakant Bargande Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.