Partly allowed

Pra Kai S. M. Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Thr Its Chairman v. Anna Sampat Marathe and Others

Bombay HC13 Aug 2018WP/2407/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court modified the impugned order of the cooperative appellate court regarding costs. The court enhanced costs from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 20,000 against respondent No. 1 due to delay in prosecuting a dispute originating in 2009.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; costs enhanced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 20,000; deposit deadline set by 31st December 2018.

Pra Kai S. M. Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah Bhagidar… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2018)

{1}

wp2407-16

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2407 OF 2016

¶6

Pra. Kai. Sambhappa Mogalikar Kamgar PETITIONER Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah. Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Mryadit, 86, Chittod Road, Dhule Through its Chairman Shri. Vijay Shivajirao Marathe Age - 50 years, Occ - Business R/o Dhule

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Anna Sampat Marathe RESPONDENTS Age - 60 years, Occ - Retired Plot No (6-B), A. N. No. 77 Pra. Kai. Sambhappa Mogalaikar Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah. Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Maryadit 86, Chittod Road, Dhule

¶9

Sanjay Shivajirao Marathe Age - 50 years, Occ - Business R/o 62, Shivshakti Colony, Chittod Road, Dhule

¶10

Smt. Prabhavati Ramchandra Joshi, Age - 65 years, Occ - Nil R/o Deep Prabha Prerna Colony, Near TV Centre, Malegaon Camp Malegaon, District - Nashik

¶11

Mr. Vikram Anandrao Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶12

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶13

DATE : 13th AUGUST, 2018

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp2407-16

¶18

advocates for the appearing parties finally with consent.

¶19

After hearing learned advocates, the position appears to be that respondent No. 1 herein had caused appearance in the dispute before co-operative court after summons had been received. It further transpires that the respondent had failed to prosecute matter further, under a plea having been told by some court ofÏcials that a subsequent summons would be issued to him about next date. This is how the explanation in respect of delay occurs at the instance of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had been working as a police ofÏcial and is a retired person.

¶20

In such a case, even if some due and credibility is to be given to the plea, having regard to facts and circumstances, the dispute is of 2009 and appeal is preferred in 2015 in respect of a decision rendered in 2012, the cost awarded by the co-operative appellate court may have to be enhanced.

¶21

As such, impugned order would be modified only to the extent of amount of costs referred to in clause 2 of the operative order dated 16^th December, 2015. Instead of Rs.2,000/-, respondent No. 1 shall bear costs of Rs.20,000/- and he shall deposit the same by 31^st December, 2018. Clause 2 in the operative order dated 16^th December, 2015 of the co-operative appellate court stands modified and costs of Rs.20,000/- is

¶22

{3} wp2407-16

¶23

imposed on respondent No. 1 instead of Rs.2,000/-. Learned advocate for respondent No. 1 submits that Rs.2000/- as directed, have already been deposited by respondent No. 1. As such, respondent No. 1 is supposed to deposit further amount of Rs.18,000/- within aforesaid period. Appeal, however, may proceed with expeditiously in the interregnum save final verdict till deposit of amount. Upon deposit of amount of costs, the petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶24

Writ petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶25

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶26

drp/wp2407-16

¶27

Dinesh Digitally signed by Dinesh Ramrao Ramrao Pawar Date: 2018.08.14 Pawar 14:36:53 +0530

Pra Kai S. M. Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Thr Its Chairman v. Anna Sampat Marathe and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pra Kai S. M. Kamgar Sahakari Bhadekaru Sah Bhagidar Gruh Nirman Sanstha Maryadit Thr Its Chairman v. Anna Sampat Marathe and Others

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

M/S Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Aurangabad through Plant Heard Vs Aurangabad Majdoor Union through General Secretary

Fakruzama Sayed Maheboob Vs Shaikh Mahemood Shaikh Chand and Others

Chitralekha Shankarrao Hiwrale Vs Ravisut Vyayam and Probodhan Shikshan Sanstha Aurangabad Thru President and Others

Vinayak Dadarao Maske Vs Rajabai Shamrao Dinde and Others

Rohini Sanjay Birare Vs the District Collector Aurangabad and Others

Sangita Gajanan Chavan Vs Gajanan Shriram Chavan