Ashoka Wines Prpo Anita Bansal Totlani Throu. Heero Shyamlal Madhyani vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec Ministry of Co-Operation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ashoka Wines Prpo Anita Bansal Totlani Throu. Heero Shyamlal Madhyani vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Sec Ministry of Co-Operation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.1 to take up the petitioner's application for interim stay / interim relief in pending Revision Application No.44 of 2026 for consideration at the earliest, with an endeavour to consider and dispose of it expeditiously and preferably within six weeks; petitioner directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 04.05.2026 at 11:00 a.m.

Issue for consideration

Whether, despite earlier-filed revision applications pending before respondent No.1 (revisional authority), the Court should direct that the petitioner's application for interim stay / interim relief in pending Revision Application No.44 of 2026 be taken up and considered expeditiously.

Court's answer

The pendency of revision applications filed prior to the petitioner's application before the revisional authority (respondent No.1) ought not to come in the way of the petitioner's application for stay / interim relief being taken up for consideration at the earliest possible.

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to express any opinion either way on the merits, it being inappropriate in writ jurisdiction while the proceedings remain pending before respondent No.1.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to take up the application for interim stay / interim relief in the pending Revision Application No.44 of 2026 of the petitioner for consideration at the earliest, with an endeavour to dispose of it expeditiously and preferably within six weeks.ratio¶19
The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 revisional authority on Monday i.e. 04.05.2026 at 11:00 a.m.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of. Petitioner aggrieved that its Revision Application No.44 of 2026, filed with an application for stay before respondent No.1 (revisional authority) against an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 - Divisional Joint Registrar in an appeal, had been neither taken up nor its stay application considered, with likelihood of recovery proceedings during pendency. Court held that revision applications filed prior to the petitioner's application pending before the revisional authority ought not to come in the way of the petitioner's stay / interim relief application being taken up at the earliest; declined to express any opinion on merits as proceedings were pending before respondent No.1; directed respondent No.1 to take up the stay / interim relief application at the earliest, preferably within six weeks, and directed the petitioner to appear before it on 04.05.2026 at 11:00 a.m.

5_WP996_26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.996 OF 2026

Ashoka Wines … Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

Mr. Aayush Kedia a/w. Mr. Rajesh Ranglani and Mr. Deepam Upadhyay for Petitioner.

Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : APRIL 27, 2026

P.C. :

. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although a revision application bearing Revision Application No.44 of 2026 along with an application for stay is filed and pending before respondent No.1, against an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 - Divisional Joint Registrar in an appeal, till date, neither the said revision application is taken up for consideration nor the stay application. This is causing prejudice to the petitioner as there is every likelihood of recovery proceedings being undertaken even during the pendency of the said revision application and the application for stay before the respondent No.1 (revisional authority).

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate:2026.04.2810:59:52 +0530

We are of the opinion that although the revision applications filed prior to the application filed by the petitioner would be pending before the revisional authority i.e. the respondent No.1, that ought not to come in the way of the application for stay / interim relief filed by the

1/2

5_WP996_26.doc

petitioner, to be taken up for consideration at the earliest possible by the revisional authority i.e. respondent No.1.

It would not be appropriate for this Court in writ jurisdiction, at this stage, when the proceedings are pending before the respondent No.1 to express any opinion either way about the matter.

The learned AGP represents respondent Nos.1 and 2.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to take up the application for interim stay / interim relief in the pending Revision Application No.44 of 2026 of the petitioner, for consideration at the earliest. An endeavor shall be made to consider and dispose of the said application expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from today.

To make it convenient for the parties, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 revisional authority on Monday i.e. 04.05.2026 at 11:00 a.m.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab

2/2