Dismissed

Web Galaxy through Its Proprietor Pratap Shankarrao Supekar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Apr 2017CA/5583/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four civil applications seeking modification of an interim order dated 21.2.2017, which directed applicants to deposit Rs. 1 crore. The Court held that the applicants' failure to deposit the full amount by the deadline was due to negligence and did not warrant modification or extension.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the civil applications seeking modification of the order; no stay granted on the order of dismissal.

Web Galaxy through Its Proprietor Pratap… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5583 OF 2017

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2469 of 2017

¶8

Web Galaxy,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Pratap Shankarrao Supekar,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Business,
R/o: Plot No. 27, Ganesh Colony,
Near Viaduwadi, Savedi,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar & others ...Applicants..

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 &others ...Respondents...

¶11

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5582 OF 2017

¶13

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.2470 of 2017

¶15

Shrikrushna Developers
Through its Partner,
Hema Suresh Supekar,
Age: 44 years, Occu: Business,
R/o: Plot No. 31, Anand complex,
Savedi, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar
& others...Applicants..

¶16

Versus

¶17

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & others ...Respondents...

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5579 OF 2017

¶22

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.2471 of 2017

¶24

Zevar Jewelers,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Jainsukh Suremal Bchhavat,
Age: 52 years, Occu: Business,
R/o: Suyog Bunglow Wakodi Road,
Adjacent to Sagar Videocon,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar & others ...Applicants..

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 &others ...Respondents...

¶27

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶28

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5581 OF 2017

¶29

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.2472 of 2017

¶31

Shri Sales Corporation,
Through its Proprietor,
Shri Onkar Dnyaneshwar Supekar,
Age: 23 years, Occu: Business,
R/o: Plot No. 27, Ganesh Colony,
Near Viaduwadi, Savedi,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar & others ...Applicants..

¶32

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

Versus

¶35

The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation and Textile Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & others ...Respondents...

¶36

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶37

 .....

¶38

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S.R. Yadav, AGP for the State.
Shri R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b Shri V.R. Dhorde,
Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶39

 .....

¶40

CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATE: 20.04.2017

¶41

ORDER :

¶42

1] These four civil applications have been taken out by the applicants seeking the following relief:-

¶43

 “A)This civil application may be allowed.
B)The order dated 21.02.1017 passed in Writ
Petition No. 2469/2017, 2470/2017, 2471/2017
and 2472/2017 may kindly be modified and the
respondent bank may kindly be directed to
adjust the amount of Rs.40 Lakhs (Rs. Ten Lakhs
in each account) kept in Fix Deposit with the
respondent No.4 Society in the respective loan
account and further the applicants be permitted
to deposit the amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs (Exhibit

¶44

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶45

- 4 -

¶46

“A”) directly with the respondent No.4 Society
within period of one week from today.
C)Any other suitable and equitable orders
may be kindly passed in favour of the present
petitioner.”

¶47

2]The civil applications seek modification of the
order dated 21.2.2017 of this Court, which reads as
under :-

¶48

“1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Issue notice to the respondents for final
disposal at admission stage, keeping open the
issue of maintainability of these petitions,
in view of availability of alternate remedy
under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, returnable on
7th March 2017. Learned A.G.Ps. waive service
for respondent No.1.

¶49

2] Meanwhile, subject to the petitioners
depositing in this Court an amount of Rs.1
Crore within a total period of four months
from today, in two installments of Rs.50 Lakhs
each, with first installment of Rs.50 Lakhs to
be deposited in this Court latest by 20th
April 2017 and the second installment of Rs.50
Lakhs to be deposited latest by 19th June
2017, there shall be ad-interim stay to the
effect and operation of the recovery

¶50

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶51

- 5 -

¶52

certificates.

¶53

3] It is made clear that, the time limit set
by this Court is final and there shall be no
further extension given by this Court and
that, in case of any single failure to comply
with this order within the deadline set by
this Court, these petitions shall stand
dismissed without reference to the Court.”

¶54

3]The civil applications state that the amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- in the aggregate in all four writ

¶55

petitions had to be deposited in this Court by today
i.e. 20.4.2017 as directed by this Court on 17.2.2017.

¶56

The applications state that the amount of

¶57

Rs.40,00,000/- (in the aggregate) in all four petitions
are lying in fixed deposit with respondent no.4 –
society. This amount be adjusted against

¶58

Rs.50,00,000/- to be deposited in Court and the

¶59

applicants will deposit amount of Rs.25,00,000/- within

¶60

a week from today in the Court. This amount of

¶61

Rs.25,00,000/- could not be deposited, as the above

¶62

amount was freezed by the Federal Bank Ltd. and is to
be released today. Therefore, the modification as
prayed for.

¶63

- 6 -

¶64

4]It is admitted by Mr.Talhar that when the order
dated 21.2.2017 was passed by this Court, on that date
also an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was lying with the

¶65

respondent no.4 - society in a fixed deposit.
Notwithstanding this fact, this Court directed the
applicants to deposit an amount of rupees one crore in

¶66

this Court within a period of four months from
21.2.2017. The first installment of Rs.50,00,000/-
being on or before 20.4.2017 and the second & final
installment of Rs.50,00,000/- not being later than
19.6.2017. Notwithstanding the above fact of deposits

¶67

with the respondent society, this Court had
categorically directed deposit of an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- in this Court latest by today. The
applicants thereafter have made arrangement to deposit
only Rs.25,00,000/- and the same, according to them,
cannot be deposited as the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was
freezed by the Federal Bank Ltd. in which it was
deposited. The applicants do not state the date and
the reason why the amount was freezed by the Federal

¶68

Bank except stating that due to some technical

¶69

objection / queries raised by the bank.

¶70

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶71

- 7 -

¶72

5] However, the Exhibit 'B' annexed to the civil

¶73

applications is a statement of account of the
applicants issued by the Federal Bank indicating that
Rs.25,00,000/- was deposited in the bank only on
19.4.2017. Therefore, it appears, no date of freezing

¶74

is mentioned in the applications. This itself raises a

¶75

question of the bona-fides of the applicants. If the applicants were honest in their attempt to honour the order of this Court dated 21.2.2017, they would have made necessary arrangements or atleast attempted to make arrangements to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- in this Court before today. In fact, the civil applications very clearly reveal that the applicants have made arrangement only to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- and are now seeking to re-argue the ad-interim relief, which was granted without hearing the respondent no.4 – society, asking them to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- on 21.2.2017.

¶76

These applications for modification are made when there
are admittedly no change in facts from that existing on
21.2.2017. The only subsequent event is the negligence

¶77

of the applicants to make arrangements to deposit
Rs.50,00,000/- by 20.4.2017, as directed by the Court.

¶78

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶79

- 8 -

¶80

In fact, the reasons set out in the civil applications

¶81

do not warrant any modification of the order dated

¶82

21.2.2017 as there is no explanation as to why the
categorical order of this Court could not be complied
with even when it was a self operating order clearly
pointing out that no extension of time to deposit would
be given and the petitions will stand dismissed without
reference to the Curt.

¶83

6]In the above view, the reasons set out in the civil
applications do not warrant any further extension of
time, particularly in view of the categorical direction
of this Court in paragraph no.3 of its order dated

¶84

21.2.2017. These applications under the garb of
modification are in fact an attempt to review the order
dated 21.2.2017 as there is no change in facts and law
as existing on 21.2.2017 (when order was passed) and

¶85

today. Further, the casual attitude on the part of the

¶86

applicants to the orders of this Court is evident and
explicit from the fact that the civil applications have

¶87

been taken out today i.e. on the last date seeking
extension of time when the last date to deposit the

¶88

amount, as directed by this Court, was to expire today.

¶89

CA 5583.17 & ors.

¶90

- 9 -

¶91

7]Hence, all the four civil applications are
dismissed.

¶92

8]At this stage, Mr.Talhar requests for the stay of
this order. I see no reason to stay this order in the
facts of the present case.

¶93

ndk/ c2041714.doc

Web Galaxy through Its Proprietor Pratap Shankarrao Supekar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Web Galaxy through Its Proprietor Pratap Shankarrao Supekar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Asaram Shankar Jagdale and Others Vs Surekha Ravindra Kawarsi and Others

Shrikant Dattaraya Khandare Vs Mohini Shrikant Khandare

Puja Dayanand Gangavane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashoklal Chunilal Chorbele and Others Vs Sachin Subhashlal Gandhi and Others

Mudrika Ranjana Sanjay Abuj Vs Sanjay Uttaramrao Abuj

Ravi Kailas Keswani and Others Vs Ramsing Munsising Chitodiya and Others