Dismissed

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ankushnagar v. Samarth Seva Bhavi Trust Ankushnagar and Others.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014WP/553/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, a co-operative society, challenged orders directing them to release a mortgaged vehicle seized as security for a loan. The High Court upheld the lower court orders maintaining vehicle custody and directed the parties to expedite the pending dispute resolution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders were upheld; parties directed to appear before the Co-operative Court to decide the pending dispute expeditiously.

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ankushnagar Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.553/2001

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2001

¶5

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Ankushnagar, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna .. Pettiioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Samarth Seva Bhavi Trust, Ankushnagar, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna

¶8

Sattarkhan Amirkhan, Age 42 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Vijay Garden, Jalna, Taluka and District Jalna

¶9

Gulabkhan s/o Kundankhan Pathan died through L.Rs.

¶10

3(1) Abedabi w/o Gulabkhan Pathan, Age 42 years, Occu.Household R/o Nagzari, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna

¶11

3(2) Mumtaj d/o Gulabkhan Pathan, Age 23 years, Occu.Household, R/o Nagzari, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna

¶12

Salim Beg Sardar Beg, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Rohilagalli, Post Old Jalna, Taluka and District Jalna

¶13

Vilas s/o Damodhar Jadhav, Age 48 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Dabaljin, Old Jalna, District Jalna ..Respondents

¶14

W.P.No.553/2001

¶15

¶16

Mr D.P.Munde, Advocate h/f Mr V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner

¶17

Mr R.T.Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr A.T.Bade, Advocate for respondents 4 and 5 – absent Mr D.M.Pardeshi and Mr A.G.Magare, Advocates for respondent No.5 – absent

¶18

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶19

DATE : 3rd July 2014

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner – Co-operative society filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad praying therein recovery of amount of Rs.86,979.45 as on 2.7.1999, i.e. the date of initiate of dispute. The borrower, the respondent No.2 to the present petition has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,27,380/- by an agreement. It appears that towards the security, the respondent No.2 has mortgaged his vehicle bearing Registration No.MTL-6086.

¶22

As the respondent No.2 has failed to repay the loan amount, the vehicle of the respondent No.2 was seized by the petitioner. The respondent No.2, in the said dispute bearing No.CCA/198/99 which was pending before the Judge, Co-operative Court, Aurangabad, moved an application for release of his vehicle, which was granted by order dated November 15, 2000.

¶23

W.P.No.553/2001

¶24

¶25

The said order dated November 15, 2000 was the subject matter of appeal at the behest of the present petitioner before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal No.195/2000. The appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Aurangabad, on 15^th November 2000, whereby the present petitioner was directed to release the truck of respondent No.2 bearing Registration No.MTL-6086 immediately.

¶26

The order dated 15^th November 2000 passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court, Aurangabad in Dispute No.198/1999 and the order dated 20^th January 2001 passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal No.195/2000, are the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

¶27

When this petition was heard, while granting Rule, interim relief was granted and the orders passed by both the Courts below, have been stayed.

¶28

After hearing the parties for some time, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 makes a statement that though the orders impugned were stayed, the vehicle remained in the custody of respondent No.2.

¶29

W.P.No.553/2001

¶30

¶31

The fact remains that the dispute is pending since 1999 but for the above referred orders of handing over custody of the vehicle.

¶32

In my opinion, no fruitful purpose will be served if the orders, which are impugned herein are disturbed.

¶33

As such, by maintaining the position as is existing today qua the custody of the vehicle, parties are directed to appear before the Co-operative Court, Aurangabad and Co-operative Court, Aurangabad to decide the dispute pending before it expeditiously.

¶34

Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶35

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶36

(vvr/553.01wp)

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ankushnagar v. Samarth Seva Bhavi Trust Ankushnagar and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ankushnagar v. Samarth Seva Bhavi Trust Ankushnagar and Others.

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

Vitthal Mohan Patil, Died Thr. L.Rs. Bhagwan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ahmedpur Vs Bapurao Raghunath Kendre

Mahalaxmi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs Santosh Dnyaneshwar Pawar and Others

Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shardabai Shivappa Atnure and Anr.

Shivdas Maruti Mundhe Vs Secretary Ganajan Vidya Pra.Mandal and Ors.