Back
B.R.GAVAI, INDIRA K.JAIN
Shewalkar Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd. – Respondent
What is the significance of consistency in orders across different benches of the same High Court? What is the legality of orders passed by a Cooperative Court when found to be based on extraneous reasons? What is the appropriate remedy where an order is set aside for extraneous reasons, and how should judicial discipline and territorial/jurisdictional consistency be enforced?
Key Points: - (!) The Court emphasizes the need for consistency in orders passed by different benches of the same court to maintain certainty in law. - (!) The Division Bench found that the Cooperative Court’s order was based on extraneous reasons and stayed/quashed it; the matter involved review of extraneous considerations in relief. - (!) The Apex Court/Axon-like discussion stresses that lack of consistency harms judicial discipline and certainty. - [4000492010010] The Court repeatedly states the importance of one Court acting with discipline and following coordinate judgments to avoid chaos. - [4000492010015] The Single Judge’s order contravened a Division Bench’s stay order; highlights the need to respect higher/coordinate bench rulings. - [4000492010016] The Supreme Court’s stance on following coordinate decisions and not overruling them without referral; emphasizes predictability. - [4000492010020] The notice/order of the Cooperative Court dated 8.10.2012 is quashed and set aside by this High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction. - [4000492010019] The petitioner’s conduct is considered in denying relief, citing equity and improper conduct during pendency. - (!) Final discharge: Rule discharged; no costs; implies remedy in setting aside unlawful order. - (!) Directive to investigate the Cooperative Court judge for potential misconduct.
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition. However, taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter and in order to give due respect to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on earlier occasions, we refuse the permission to withdraw the petition and proceed to decide the same.
3. The petition arises out of very peculiar facts. The petitioner is a borrower of the respondent nos.1 and 2 – Bank. Since the petitioner was liable to pay dues of the Bank, it appears that the respondent nos.1 and 2 – Bank had initiated proceedings for recovery. A dispute came to be filed by the present petitioner being a Dispute No.263/2012. In the said dispute, an application for temporary injunction also came to be filed below Exh.5.
4. The learned Judge of the Co-operative court initially granted ex parte order on 12.9.2012. It appears that the relief which was sought by the petitioner was to the effect that the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies should not grant any recovery certificate under the provision
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
