Dismissed

Twentyone Sugars Limited through Its Authorized Officer Mr. Rushikesh Bhaskar More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Feb 2022WP/14235/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court held that monetary claims arising from contractual obligations with disputed facts are not entertainable in writ jurisdiction. The Court also noted the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the competent authority, making the present petition premature.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed by reserving liberty to pursue the pending appeal before the Department of Co-Operation, Marketing and Textile, Government of Maharashtra.

Twentyone Sugars Limited through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

44WP14235.21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 14235 OF 2021

¶5

Twentyone Sugars Limited Through its
Authorized Officer Mr. Rushikesh Bhaskar More….Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. D.J. Choudhary
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. S.G. Karlekar

¶10

CORAM : A.S. GADKARI & S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶11

Date : 08.02.2022

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

1.Record clearly indicates against the alleged impugned Order dated

¶14

27.10.2021 and 29.10.2021, the petitioner has already filed a substantive

¶15

Appeal with the Department of Co-Operation, Marketing and Textile,
Government of Maharashtra, on 13.11.2021. Prayer clause (A) of the
Appeal clearly indicates that the impugned Orders dated 27.10.2021 and
29.10.2021, passed by respondent No. 2 are challenged therein. The said
Appeal is subjudiced before the concerned Authority. Despite the said fact,

¶16

the present petition for same relief has been filed on 13.12.2021, by the

¶17

petitioner without even waiting for the decision of said appeal.

¶18

It is thus clear to us that, the petitioner is approaching various foras

¶19

¶20

44WP14235.21

¶21

at same point of time for seeking same reliefs.

¶22

2.There is another facet to the present petition. Petitioner is seeking
adjudication of FRP for harvesting and transporting of sugar of its
company. The petitioner inter alia wants this Court to adjudicate its
monetary claim as a substantive relief in the present petition. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that, money claims per se
particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not
entertained in writ jurisdiction. According to us there are disputed
questions of facts involved in the present petition.

¶23

3.In view thereof, we find that, the petition is not maintainable.
Petition is accordingly dismissed by reserving the liberty of the petitioner
to pursue the Appeal filed before the Department of Co-Operation,
Marketing and Textile, Government of Maharashtra.

¶24

( S. G. MEHARE, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶25

SPC

Twentyone Sugars Limited through Its Authorized Officer Mr. Rushikesh Bhaskar More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Twentyone Sugars Limited through Its Authorized Officer Mr. Rushikesh Bhaskar More 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankarrrao Naryanrao Karanjakar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others

Savita Abhay Chate Vs Authorized Officer Abudaya Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Another

Eknath Tavaji Magar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Sundamrao Sonawne and Others Vs Twentyone Sugars Limited through Its Authorized Officer Rushikesh Bhaskar More and Others

The District Collector and Others Vs Bhagwan Namdeo Mangate and Others

Shreyas Sunil Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others