Dismissed

Rangrao Yesu Patil and Ors. v. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. by and through Its Managing Director

Bombay HC11 Jul 2019CAW/645/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition in light of the State Government's representation agreeing to delete a specific portion of an impugned order. All associated Civil and Criminal applications were also disposed of, with interim orders remaining in force for two weeks to enable appropriate remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; State Government's representation accepted; Impugned order contraction noted; All interim orders continued for two weeks.

Rangrao Yesu Patil and Ors. Vs Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

910-wp-1633-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1633 OF 2019

¶4

Rajarambapu Patil Shhakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Through Managing Director Mr.Ramchandra ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra Through Dy. Secretary, Dept of Co-operation & Textile .. Respondent

¶5

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.645 OF 2019 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1633 OF 2019

¶7

Rangrao Yesu Patil & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. By & Through Its Managing Director ..Respondent

¶8

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1158 OF 2019 IN

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.1633 OF 2019

¶10

Sarvodaya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. By & Through Its Managing Director ..Respondent

¶11

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1159 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1633 OF 2019

¶12

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶13

910-wp-1633-2019

¶14

Rajarambapu Patil Shhakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Through Managing Director Mr.Ramchandra ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Dept. of Energy & Ors. ..Respondents ----

¶15

Mr.V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.S.S. Diwan, Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner.

¶16

Mr.Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate a/w Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶17

Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate I/b Mr.A.R. Gole for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶18

Mr.P.S. Dani, Senior Advocate I/b Mr.Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.5.

¶19

Ms.Sirisha Kurade I/b Mr.S.V. Marne for the Applicant in CAW No.645 of 2019.

¶20

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶21

DATE : 11^th JULY 2019

¶22

P.C.

¶23

The present Writ Petitions can be conveniently disposed

¶24

of in light of the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel Shri.Naik, representing the State Government. The said statement is contained in a communication from the Deputy Secretary of State of Maharashtra addressed to the counsel for the State Government on 09.07.2019 where no objection is accorded by the State Government

¶25

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶26

910-wp-1633-2019

¶27

to delete the concluding portion of the impugned order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Secretary, Co-operative Marking and Textile Department. The said portion reads thus:-

¶28

“Hence the request made to transfer the property

¶29

and the Management of Sugar Factory to the Original Board of Directors of the Karkhana is reasonable. Sugar Commissioner is directed to act accordingly at the earliest.” ( R;keqGs loksZn; lgdkjh lk[kj dkj[kkU;kph ekyeRrk o iz'kklu eqG lHkklnkaP;k fu;qDr eaMGkdMs lqiwnZ dj.;kckcr dsysyh fouarh jkLr vkgs- R;kizek.ks lk[kj vk;qDr ;kauh rkRdkG dk;Zokgh djkoh- )

¶30

The statement made on behalf of the State Government

¶31

is accepted and in view of the statement, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to assail the impugned order dated 25.01.2019 by approaching the appropriate forum including filing of a Writ Petition.

¶32

It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points and contentions of all parties are kept open.

¶33

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

¶34

910-wp-1633-2019

¶35

In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil

¶36

Applications do not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶37

All the interim orders operating in the present Petition shall continue to remain in force for period of two weeks from today, so as to enable the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedies.

¶38

(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶39

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Rangrao Yesu Patil and Ors. v. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. by and through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangrao Yesu Patil and Ors. v. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. by and through Its Managing Director

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

Mohd. Shafeek Rais Ahmed Khan Vs Saina Manirul Haque Shaikh and Ors.

Sachin v. Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Venkteshwar Ramchandra Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Brijkishan Kaul and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Thru Managing Director Mr. Ramchandra D. Mahuli Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Dy. Secretary, Dept. of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Mah. State Electricity Board Backward Classes Sr. Engineers and Officers Asso. Thru President Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Secretary, Dept. of Energy and Ors.