Shobha Vishal Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025WP/16626/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules 1961; Rule 107; Rule 107(19); objection before Recovery Officer; Chief Judicial Magistrate Mumbai; Case No. 196/SA/2024; order dated 19/10/2024; writ petition not entertained where statutory remedy availed; direction to Recovery Officer to decide objection in accordance with law; no opinion on merits; admission-stage disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the Petitioner's objection (filed under Rule 107(19)) in accordance with law; Petition otherwise not entertained and no opinion expressed on merits. ¶¶17

Shobha Vishal Shinde vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the Petitioner's objection (filed under Rule 107(19)) in accordance with law; Petition otherwise not entertained and no opinion expressed on merits.

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition should be entertained where the Petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy under Rule 107(19) by filing an objection before the Recovery Officer which remains undecided.

¶¶16

Court's answer

In view of the Petitioner having already availed the statutory remedy available, the Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner shall appear before the Recovery Officer.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the objection in accordance with law.ratio¶¶17
This Court has not expressed any opinion upon the merits of the matter.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Bharati Dangre, J.) disposed of W.P. No. 16626 of 2024 (Shobha Vishal Shinde v. State of Maharashtra) by order dated 23.01.2025. The Petition challenged an order dated 19/10/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, in Case No. 196/SA/2024 under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that against the said order the statutory remedy under Rule 107(19) of the Rules had been availed by filing an objection before the Recovery Officer, on which no orders had been passed, and sought disposal of the Petition with a direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the objection in a time-bound manner. Holding that the Petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy, the Court was not inclined to entertain the Petition, directed the Petitioner to appear before the Recovery Officer, and disposed of the Petition with a direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the objection in accordance with law, expressly reserving any expression on the merits.

¶1

(47)WP-16626-2024.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16626 OF 2024

¶4

Shobha Vishal Shinde ] .. Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.Sanjay Anabhawane i/b Ms.Tripti Nandoskar for the Petitioner. Mr.Swapnil P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.B.V. Samant, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶6

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 23^rd JANUARY, 2025.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at admission stage.

¶9

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 19/10/2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mumbai, in Case No. 196/SA/2024, under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

¶10

Digitally signed by RAJSHREE RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE KISHOR Date: MORE 2025.01.23 19:50:46 +0530

¶11

After arguing the matter to some extent, the learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that against the aforesaid order, the

¶12

1/2

¶13

(47)WP-16626-2024.doc

¶14

Petitioner has availed of the statutory remedy provided under Rule 107 (19) of the Rules by filing objection before the Recovery Officer. However, no orders are being passed on the aforesaid objection. It is submitted that the Writ Petition be disposed of with a direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the objection in a time bound manner.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid submission, and in the facts of the case as the Petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy available to him, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition. However, needless to state that the Petitioner shall appear before the Recovery Officer.

¶17

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed off with a direction to the Recovery Officer to decide the objection in accordance with law.

¶18

We make it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion upon merits of the matter.

¶19

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶20

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

2/2

Shobha Vishal Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Vishal Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Motilal Nagar Rahivasi Vikas Sangh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Impresario Enertainment and Hospitality Private Limited vs Phonogrfic Performnce Limited

Ganesh Sawant vs Ketan Vinod Chhatpar

Dharampal Satyapal Foods Limited vs Parle Products Private Limited

The Hon. Secretary/Chairman, Hind Saurashtra Industries Coop. Society Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

The Hon. Secretary/ Chairamn Hind Saurashtra Industries Co-Op.Society Ltd. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Mumbai Division