Nitesh v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Aug 2009
- Bench
- K K TATED
Outcome
Allowed
present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. sut/AUG09/wp5525.09 [ K.K. TATED, J.]
Judgment
Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for State - respondents. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for State respondents. With the consent of both the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21-02-2007 passed by respondent No.4, who issued recovery certificate against the petitioner for sum of Rs. 33,26,190/-.
A few facts of the present case are as under. . Respondent No. 5 filed application for getting recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that the petitioner is liable to pay sum of Rs. 33,26,190/- towards loan amount as well as interest and other expenses. On 21-12-2006 Liquidator came to be appointed of respondent No.5. Mr. B.L. Jadhav took charge as Liquidator of respondent No. 5. Mr. B.L. Jadhav (Liquidator 3 of respondent No.5) passed order dated 21-02-2007 as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and issued recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that on one hand Mr. B.L. Jadhav acted as the Liquidator of respondent No. 5 and on the other hand, he acted as the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, while passing recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act. He submitted that no person can be Judge in his own case. In support of his submission, he relied on the unreported judgment passed by me dated 29-07-2009 in Writ Petition No. 4024 of 2009 Bharat Shama Rathod vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of State - respondents also admits that Mr. B.L. Jadhav, at the relevant time acted as Liquidator as well as the Deputy Registrar and issued recovery certificate under Section 101 of the said Act. 4
Operative part
Therefore, in view of order dated 29-07-2009 in Writ Petition No. 4024/2009, present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause-C which reads as under. "(C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, the order dated 21/2/2009 passed by the respondent No. 4 thereby issuing recovery certificate against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside. "
It is made clear that respondent No. 5 can take appropriate steps according to law for the recovery of dues by following due process of law, on same cause of action.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. sut/AUG09/wp5525.09
[ K.K. TATED, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 101.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Aug 2009. The bench was K K TATED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.