Disposed

Shri. Haresh Motiram Aswani v. the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune

Bombay HC13 Oct 2014WP/8957/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking directions for decision on pending representation for share transfer. Cotton High Court directed the respondent Commissioner to pass orders after hearing, with deadline of 17th November 2014. Section 91 remedy and merits kept open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the representation after hearing both parties by 17th November 2014.

Shri. Haresh Motiram Aswani Vs the Commissioner for… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp8957.14.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8957 of 2014

¶5

Shri Haresh Motiram Aswani ... Petitioner V/s.

¶6

The Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar, Cooperative Societies State of Maharashtra, Pune & anr. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. G.S.Godbole i/b. Mr. D.S. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for respondent no.2. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ . 13th October , 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The petitioner filed a representation dated 12^th August, 2014 to the Commissioner of Cooperatives & Registrar, Maharashtra State, Pune (Exhibit F herein).

¶11

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that representation is still kept pending, therefore, suitable directions be given to the

¶12

2/3 wp8957.14.sxw

¶13

Commissioner to decide the representation. The learned Counsel submits that petitioners are requesting for transfer of shares in accordance with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, rules and by-laws framed therein.

¶14

The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 Bank raises objection to the request made by the petitioner for issuing such directions. The Counsel submits that petitioner had alternate remedy of filing dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is further submitted that under the garb of representation, the petitioner is getting a dispute resolved from the Commissioner.

¶15

The Bank had already taken a policy decision in respect of the issue concerning transfer of shares.

¶16

Learned AGP submits that if directed the Commissioner or the authority in-charge of the Commissioner would pass appropriate orders on the representation.

¶17

We have perused the record placed before us. Considered the submissions

¶18

advanced. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner in respect of the representation made on 12^th August, 2014, we direct

¶19

3/3 wp8957.14.sxw

¶20

the respondent no.1 or Additional Commissioner or any other authority holding the charge of Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the representation annexed at Exhibit F herein after hearing the petitioner and respondent no.2. The decision of respondent no.1 shall be communicated to the petitioner by 17^th November, 2014.

¶21

It is clarified that we have not determined any issue or expressed any

¶22

opinion in respect of prayer clause (a). That issue is kept open.

¶23

All contentions on merits are kept open. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order.

¶24

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶25

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Shri. Haresh Motiram Aswani v. the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Haresh Motiram Aswani v. the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune

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

Shri. Digamber Jagannath Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Sou. Asha Raidas Bhosale.. Vs M/S Vinar Enterprises

Shri. Digamber Jagannath Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

M. K. Gupta Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Railway Board and Ors.

Gopal Ramchandra Vishwakarma C/O Maharashtra Employees Union Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Smt. Dhakalubai Prabhakar Patil and Ors.