Petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing his claim of legal aid exemption for an agricultural loan and alleged limitation bar. The Court found insufficient evidence for agricultural purpose and held the Society's claim unbarred, rejecting the writ petition.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
12-WP-2299-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2299 OF 2022
Shrikant Paranna Pujari ...Petitioner Versus Shri. Virshaiv Nagari Bigarsheti Sahakari Patasanstha Marya. & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. P. B. Shah a/w Mr. Amit A. Kanade, for Petitioner. Mr. Suhas S. Inamdar, for Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2023.
P.C.:
Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2023.10.16 13:18:34 +0530
1/4
Sajakali Jamadar
12-WP-2299-2022.doc
2/4
Sajakali Jamadar
12-WP-2299-2022.doc
defence of application of Section 44A has been raised for the first time before the Cooperative Appellate Court. Petitioner ought to have led evidence that the loan was utilised for purchase of machinery which can be used for agricultural purpose and that he deployed such purchased machinery for agricultural purpose. In absence of there being any evidence to the effect that the exact nature of machinery purchased and its use for agricultural purpose, it is difficult to hold that the loan has been availed strictly for agricultural purpose. In that view of the matter, Petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of provisions of Section 44A of the Act of 1960.
3/4
Sajakali Jamadar
12-WP-2299-2022.doc
the Cooperative Court. Where the issue was not raised at all before the Cooperative Court, there was no question of Cooperative Appellate Court considering or deciding the same. Even otherwise considering the provisions of Section 92(1)(a) of the Act, 1960, the dispute raised by Respondent-Society cannot be said to be barred by limitation. I am therefore of the view that Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is rejected without any order as to costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
4/4
Sajakali Jamadar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Petitioner can claim exemption under Section 44A given a dispute about the loan being exclusively for agricultural purposes.
Whether the recovery dispute by the Society is barred by limitation under Section 92(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shrikant Paranna Pujari
Shri. Virshaiv Nagari Bigarsheti Sahakari Patasanstha Marya
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
