Dismissed

Sudhir Diwan v. State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC31 Oct 2017WP/1849/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected a writ petition seeking interference under Article 227 with an order of the Co-operative Appellate Court. The petitioner sought a restraint on opponents from using society funds for criminal defence. The court found the lower court's refusal was correct and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The writ petition is rejected. Contentions are left open for appropriate proceedings at an apposite time.

Sudhir Diwan Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

12-WP1849-17.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2017

¶5

Sudhir Diwan
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Mr Sudhir Diwan, Petitioner in person present.
Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP for State/Respondent No.1.
Mr KM John, for Respondents Nos.3, 5 to 10.

¶9

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:31st October 2017

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.The Petition seeks an order under Article 227. It ought to
have been framed as an application, but I will allow that to pass.

¶12

2.The challenge is to an order dated 18th April 2017 of the Co-
operative Appellate Court. It is wrongly stated that the Petitioner’s
Application for interim relief was rejected. In fact, although the
Application was initially rejected by the 1st Co-operative Court, the
Petitioner’s Appeal was partly allowed as can be seen from page 44.
It is to be noted that in the application for interim relief, prayer
clause (c) sought to restrain the Opponents from drawing from
society funds for their defence of criminal cases filed by the
Petitioner. The Appellate Court declined to grant relief in this

¶13

Page 1 of 2
31st October 2017

¶14

12-WP1849-17.DOC

¶15

regard. Paragraph 16 of the impugned order said that while it is true
that process has been issued, the order issuing process is under
challenge; it is too early to say whether any case of commission of an
offence is made out or whether the acts alleged to have been done by
the Opponents were in their personal capacity or official capacity.
The Writ Petitioner today insists that it is irrelevant that the
criminal proceedings are as yet pending. His allegations, he says,
should be sufficient. These proceedings, he says, will take a long
time. He therefore demands an immediate restraint against the
opponents from using society funds and, to that extent, a reversal of
the impugned order.

¶16

3.This is no ground for interference. The view taken by the
Member of the State Co-operative Appellate Court is absolutely
correct, and unexceptionable. There is no merit in the Writ
Petition. It is rejected. It is however sufficient to leave open all
contentions on both sides for appropriate proceedings at an apposite
time.

¶17

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶18

Page 2 of 2
31st October 2017

Sudhir Diwan v. State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Diwan v. State of Maharashtra and 9 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

Rishika Chandrapratap Patil Vs the Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and 4 Others

Vilasben Bharat Jani and Bharta L Jani and 5 Others Vs Divisional Joint Regsitrar and 3 Others

The David Sasoon Library and Reading Room Vs M/S. Lund and Blockley Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Kamala Laxminarayan Chintakindi Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and 4 Ors.

Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking Vs Oscar Print and Allied Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Rasiklal Kantilal and Co. and Ors. Vs Smt. Pravinaben Rasiklal Patel(Since Deceased),Thru. Lrs and Ors.