Sampatrao a Pawar v. Tumoja Srinivas Chari and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2025WP/18356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960; maintainability of cooperative society dispute; non-impleading of Society as party; member versus past committee/present officer; clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1); Cooperative Court; Revisional Authority; defect curable; Society represented through Chairman; WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2024; Amit Borkar J.; Bombay High Court; decided November 19, 2025; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition disposed of with no costs. ¶¶18

Sampatrao a Pawar vs Tumoja Srinivas Chari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

27-wp-18356-2024.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶5

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.11.19 18:23:27 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 2024

¶7

Sampatrao A Pawar … Petitioner V/s. Tumoja Srinivas Chari & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate i/b Hemant P. Ghadigaonkar, for the Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The challenge in the present Writ Petition arises from the rejection of an application filed by the petitioner (original opponent) seeking framing of an issue regarding the maintainability of the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (“the MCS Act”), and consequently praying for dismissal of the dispute as not maintainable on the ground that the Society has not been impleaded as a party. The Cooperative Court rejected the said application holding that the defect pointed out by the petitioner is curable. The Revisional Authority, while dismissing the revision, further held that the Society is sufficiently represented in the proceedings through its Chairman.

¶12

On perusal of the dispute application filed by Respondent No.1, it is evident that the Society has not been made as a party.

¶13

¶14

27-wp-18356-2024.doc

¶15

Section 91 of the MCS Act requires that at least one of the parties to the dispute should be either a Society or a person claiming through a Society.

¶16

Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the absence of the Society being impleaded, the dispute under Section 91 is not maintainable, and therefore the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application.

¶17

In the context of the above submission, I have carefully perused Section 91 of the MCS Act. Section 91 contemplates that both parties to the dispute must fall within one or the other categories enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 91. The petitioner falls within the category of “any past committee or present officer”, while the disputant falls within the category of “member” under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 91. Accordingly, a dispute filed by a member against any past committee or present officer is maintainable even in the absence of the Society as a party. Hence, the orders passed by the Courts below therefore do not suffer from any infirmity.

¶18

The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶19

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶20

Sampatrao a Pawar v. Tumoja Srinivas Chari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampatrao a Pawar v. Tumoja Srinivas Chari 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

Anand Pratap Singh Gehlot vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Ganpat Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Junaid Shamshuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Meroform India Pvt. Ltd. vs Tata Projects Limited

Asharani Jilajeet Singh and Ors. vs Mamta Anil Singh and Ors.

Abhijit Baburao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra