SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRI SHRIRAM BAKARAMJI ASHTANKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION AND TEXTILES,MUMBAI AND – Respondent
WP 6224/2015



Advocates:
['MUKESH V SAMARTH', 'PRAKASH D MEGHE', 'FOR/R', 'ARVIND DINESH DUBEY', 'COPY SERVED TO GP', 'GP']

2607wp6224.15

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 6224 OF 2015

(Shri Shriram Bakaramji Ashtankar vs. State of Maharashtra and others)

__________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders

or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent nos.1 and 2.

Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for respondent nos.3

and 4.

------

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND

KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATED : JULY 26, 2016

We find that controversy needs to be

considered along with Writ Petition No. 2664/2015.

In that writ petition, ad interim order was issued on

6/5/2015 while ordering notice to respondents.

Question is whether said order is confirmed ? Other

question is whether identical orders passed in other

matters and at other Benches of this Court have been

confirmed ?

The other question is when this Court has

stayed only part of bye-laws imposing ceiling on

number of Directors, whether elections of new

Executive Committee/Managing Committee could

have been conducted ? Parties are not very sure

2607wp6224.15

2/3

whether in all such Societies in which interim orders

have been passed by this Court, such elections have

been held or not held.

In the present writ petition, this Court has

issued notice on 10/11/2015 and ordered status quo.

Respondent nos.1 and 2 had appointed Managing

Director of respondent no.3 itself as Administrator

and it is a case of respondents that said Managing

Director had assumed charge accordingly before

passing of order of status quo.

Adv. Samarth for

petitioner disputes this.

We keep this contention open.

To enable parties to assist this Court

further in the matter, particularly in the light of

provisions of Section 166(4) of the Maharashtra

Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, we list present writ

petition on 22/8/2016 along with Writ Petition

No.2664/2015.

JUDGE JUDGE

khj

2607wp6224.15

3/3

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this order uploaded is a true

and correct copy of original signed order.

Uploaded by :

Uploaded on :

Kamal H. Jeswani

28/07/2016

Private Secretary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top