Allowed

Shri. Seth Sakharam Nemchand Jain Aushadhalay and Rugnalay Trust through President v. Mr. Dipak Shankarrao Aaherkar

Bombay HC10 Dec 2019WP/8635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order rejecting an application for witness summons under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, relying on Shinde H.R. The court allowed the application and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3rd July, 2019 was set aside, and the application below Exhibit 114 was allowed.

Shri. Seth Sakharam Nemchand Jain Aushadhalay and… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/2

¶2

904-wp 8635-2019.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8635 OF 2019

¶5

Shri Seth Sakharam Nemchand Jain Aushadhalay and Rugnalay Trust through President

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Dipak Shankarrao Aaherkar

¶9

…. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. I.M. Khairdi for the Respondent

¶11

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. DATE : 10^th DECEMBER, 2019

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard Mr. Surel Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khairdi learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 3^rd July, 2019 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner-3, Solapur Region, Solapur in respect of Change Report No. 478/2012.

¶15

This Court vide order dated 13th August, 2019 had issued notice for fnal disposal. While issuing notice, It was prima facie observed that the aforesaid order was contrary to the provisions of

Shinde H.R.

2/2

904-wp 8635-2019.odt

Section 73 r/w Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. Consequently, the said order was stayed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that Writ Petition may be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) & (C).

¶21

At this stage, it may be mentioned that the application below Exhibit 114 fled by the petitioner for issuing witness summons to examine one witness of the petitioner was turned down by the Assistant Charity Commissioner-3, Solapur Region Solapur vide the impugned order.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for parties and on due consideration, impugned order dated 3^rd July, 2019 is hereby setaside. Consequently, the application below Exh.114 in Change Report No.478/2012 is allowed. Assistant Charity Commissioner-3, Solapur Region, Solapur shall do the needful within a period of 2 months from the date of furnishing of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶23

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

( UJJAL BHUYAN, J. )

¶25

Shinde H.R.

Shri. Seth Sakharam Nemchand Jain Aushadhalay and Rugnalay Trust through President v. Mr. Dipak Shankarrao Aaherkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Seth Sakharam Nemchand Jain Aushadhalay and Rugnalay Trust through President v. Mr. Dipak Shankarrao Aaherkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satayya Kallayya Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Namdeo Sukhdeo Khandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Dashrath Mahadeo Bhagat through Poa Vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. Vs Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Ragho Jana Bhingarkar and Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

The Nashik Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited through Chief Manager S.D. Bagul Vs State of Maharashtra through Commissioner for Coopeeration and Rgeistrar Co-Op. Soc. Maha. and Anr.