Disposed

Raosaheb Dada Pawar Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Thr Its Director v. State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Nov 2024WP/11572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sugar cooperative sought to quash minutes of a meeting and the decision routing a Marginal Money Loan through the Government of Maharashtra without considering its claim, based on committee recommendations. At the first hearing, affidavits were directed and interim restraint ordered.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction that Respondents 1/2 not disburse or hold Rs.107.69 Crores under the Marginal Money Loan scheme till next date; matter listed 19 September 2024.

Raosaheb Dada Pawar Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

14.wp.11572.24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11572 OF 2024

¶3

Raosaheb Dada Pawar Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar i/b Rushikesh C. Barge , Advocates for the Petitione r.

¶9

Mr.A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P., with Mr.Y. D. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2024.08.2216:18:56 +0530

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶12

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 21, 2024

¶13

P. C.

¶14

1 The above Writ Petition is filed to quash the minutes of the meeting dated 23^rd July, 2024 passed by the Respondents as also the decision taken by the Respondents for grant of the “Marginal Money Loan Routed through Government of Maharashtra” from NCDC, insofar as it does not consider granting the loan to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner is entitled for grant of the “Marginal Money Loan Routed through the Government of Maharashtra” as

¶15

Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 21, 2024

¶16

Aswale

¶17

14.wp.11572.24.doc

¶18

per the recommendation given by the two Committees (referred to in the Petition) .

¶19

2 The learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 waives service of notice and sought time to file an affidavit in reply to the above Writ Petition. In these circumstances, we direct that the affidavit in reply, if any, shall be filed on or before 4^th September, 2024 and a copy of the same shall be served on the advocates for the Petitioner. If the Petitioner wants to file any affidavit in rejoinder, they may do so on or before 11^th September, 2024 and serve a copy of the same on the learned AGP. For the time-being, we are not issuing notice to Respondent Nos.3 to 18 who are private Respondents and who are other sugar factories.

¶20

3 We direct that in the meanwhile, and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, till the next date of hearing, Respondent No.1 and/or Respondent No.2 shall not disburse [if not already disbursed], and hold on to, an amount of Rs.107.69 Crores as claimed by the Petitioner under the scheme of “Marginal Money Loan”, or any part thereof.

¶21

4 Stand over to 19^th September, 2024.

¶22

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 21, 2024

¶23

Aswale

¶24

14.wp.11572.24.doc

¶25

5 This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶26

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶27

Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 21, 2024

¶28

Aswale

Raosaheb Dada Pawar Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Thr Its Director v. State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Dada Pawar Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Thr Its Director v. State of Maharashtra Thr Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 19 Mumbai vs Laxmi Finance and Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co. Op Soc Ltd. Ay 2010-11 Revenue

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 19 Mumbai vs Laxmi Finance and Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co. Op Soc Ltd. Ay 2005-06 Revenue

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 19 Mumbai vs Laxmi Finance and Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co. Op Soc Ltd. Ay 2006-07 Assessee

Amardev T. Yadav. vs the State of Maharashtra through and Ors.

Balutai Pandurang Dixit (Sutar) vs State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Rehabilitation Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltdthrought Its Managing Director vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.