Master Services a Registered Partnership Firm Thr Its Partner vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

¶1

913-wp-580-2026.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:6459-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.580 OF 2026

¶5

Master Services, a registered partnership firm, through its partnership Mr. Sachin s/o Ganesh Kulkarni .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Taluka Bhoom, District Dharashiv, Present Liquidator of Shubh Kalyan Multistate Co-operative Society Ltd.

¶9

The Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 900, 9^th Floor, Tower-E, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110 029. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. S. W. Munde, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 10 FEBRUARY 2026

[1]

913-wp-580-2026.odt

ORDER :

. Present petition has been filed for following reliefs :-

¶16

“b) By issuing writ of mandamus or by way of any other appropriate writ, order or directions in like nature, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct respondent No.2 and 3 to consider application of the petitioner and thereby permission to add liquidator as respondent in the execution petition No.193/2023. In view of Section 117 (2) of the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

¶17

c) By issuing writ of mandamus or by way of any other appropriate writ, order or directions in like nature, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct respondent No.2 and 3 take steps towards satisfaction of decretal amount through liquidator in view of Judgment and Decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.24/2018 dated 07.10.2019.

¶18

d) By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to disclose which authority is competent to grant permission for adding the Liquidator as a partyrespondent in the pending execution proceedings, particularly when, despite the Petitioner's request/application, such permission has not yet been granted.

¶19

[2]

¶20

913-wp-580-2026.odt

¶21

e) By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the executing court to keep Special Darkhast No. 193 of 2023 pending and not to close the execution, and direct the Ld. Executive Court, Ld. Civil Judge Senior Division, Kallam by securing the Applicant's decretal claim.”

¶22

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.

¶23

It appears that the petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2018 before the learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur, which came to be partly decreed on 07.10.2019. Thereafter, it appears that the decree was transferred for execution to learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad and thereafter, it appears that it was transferred to learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kallam, District Osmanabad. Special Darkhast No.193 of 2023 is pending before the concerned Executing Court. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court rejected the said application by specifically observing that since the liquidator has been appointed on Shubh Kalyan Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. i.e. the original defendant, unless leave is obtained from the competent authority under Section 102 of the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, the party

¶24

[3]

¶25

913-wp-580-2026.odt

¶26

cannot be added. However, the decree holder was given liberty to obtain the leave from the competent authority. Thereafter, it appears that the present petitioner had filed application to respondent No.3 on 29.07.2025 seeking leave to add the liquidator as party in the said execution proceedings. The said application was sent through R.P.A.D. The track report shows that it was delivered. However, by communication dated 09.12.2025 it was informed to the petitioner that the said application dated 05.08.2025 is not traceable with the office of respondent No.3, therefore, it has not yet been decided. According to the petitioner, the DH has been given ultimatum by the executing Court to get such permission and the petitioner apprehends that if that permission is not produced before the executing Court, the executing Court would dismiss the petition.

¶27

Learned Senior Panel Counsel Mr. S. W. Munde waives notice for respondent No.3 and upon instructions, places on record the photocopy of the communication received to him on his mail from respondent No.3, which is taken on record by marking as Exhibit-‘X’ stating that the said application would be decided within four weeks.

¶28

It appears that the application dated 29.07.2025 is not available with respondent No.3 and, therefore, we direct the petitioner to once

¶29

[4]

¶30

913-wp-580-2026.odt

¶31

again send the copy of the said application to respondent No.3. So also, learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.3 to forward the copy of the said application, which is produced along with the petition, to respondent No.3 immediately and respondent No.3 to take decision on the said application within a period of four weeks from today. He should immediately communicate the decision to the petitioner on the E-mail ID of the petitioner.

¶32

We direct the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kallam not to take any adverse decision against the petitioner in Special Darkhast No.193 of 2023 for a period of six weeks from today.

¶33

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶35

scm

¶36

[5]

Master Services a Registered Partnership Firm Thr Its Partner v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Services a Registered Partnership Firm Thr Its Partner v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

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

Similar cases

Sunita Ravindra Badgujar and Another vs the District Collector Dhule and Others

Sudhakar Ramsing Jadhav and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Supriya Shankar Mudale vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Namdev Tukaram Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amolkumar Santram Gore vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Appasaheb Baburao Alias Rangnath Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Others