Agriculture Produce Market ... vs Jeevan Vinayak Jagirdar And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1711 Bom

                                       {1}                                wp10206-15

     drp
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                            
                        WRIT PETITION NO.10206 OF 2015




                                                    
     Agriculture Produce Market Committee                             PETITIONER
     A Body Constituted under section 12
     of Maharashtra Agriculture Produce Marketing
     (Regulation) Act, 1963,




                                                   
     Through its Chairman
     Having its Registered Office at Jalgaon Road,
     Jamner, District - Jalgaon

              VERSUS




                                     
     1.       Jeevan Vinayak Jagirdar
                              ig                                  RESPONDENTS
              Age - 50 years, Occ - Proprietor and
              Owner of Darshan Constructions, Jamner
              R/o 60, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon Road,
                            
              Jamner, Taluka - Jamner
              District - Jalgaon

     2.       K. G. Khadse and Associates
              Through Harish K. Khadse,
      

              Registered No.CA/2000/26439
              Age - Major, Occ - Architect,
   



              R/o Ashirwad, Holy Cross Covenant Road,
              Akola

     3.       Sanjay Dayaram Lokhande,
              Age - 50 years, Occ - Service and





              Ex-Secretary of Agriculture Produce
              Market Committee, Jamner
              R/o Jamner, Taluka - Jamner
              District - Jalgaon





     4.       Dagadu Vishnu Patil,
              Age - 60 years, Occ - Ex President of
              Agriculture Produce Market committee,
              Jamner, R/o Chalisgaon, Taluka - Jamner
              District - Jalgaon

                                     .......

Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K. B. Borde, Advocate for respondent No.1

{2} wp10206-15

Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. M.S.Deshmukh h/f Mr. D.B.Shinde, Adv for respondent No.3

Mr. K. M. Nagarkar, Advocate for respondent No.4 ........

                                     WITH




                                                 
                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15945 OF 2015
                                       IN
                    WRIT PETITION NO.10206 OF 2015

     Jeevan Vinayak Jagirdar                                APPLICANT




                                                
            VERSUS
     Agriculture Produce Market Committee
     Jamner, District - Jalgaon & Others                RESPONDENTS
                                      .......




                                        

Mr. K. B. Borde, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar , Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent No.2 ig ........

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 21st APRIL, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. Against order dated 17th August, 2015 upon Exhibit-62, in

Special Civil Suit No.60 of 2011, wherein the defendant -

petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,06,10,702/-, the

petitioner - defendants has been before this court.

3. Under an interim order passed on 13 th October, 2015, the

petitioner - defendant was directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.1,05,00,000/- in this court. Accordingly, it appears that the

deposit has been made by the petitioner - defendant.

{3} wp10206-15

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner highlighted that the

measurement and the so called admission of the amount to the

extent as is being contended by the plaintiff- respondent, cannot

be said to be by the legitimate body, which would govern the

APMC and a body which has been holding on in the interregnum,

as an ad hoc body has caused lot of damage to the APMC. It is in

these circumstances, some proceedings have been recorded,

pursuant to which the claim is made by the plaintiff -

respondent. Learned advocate further submits that the order

impugned in the present petition is an interlocutory order and is

not with reference to the admission of entitlement of the plaintiff

- respondent. The matter / suit will have to be decided on merits

and the plaintiff-respondent will have to prove his entitlement to

said amount. It is being submitted that as a matter of fact the

decision taken by the ad hoc body in respect of the plaintiff -

respondent, is a complete turnaround from the stand which is

appearing in the written statement to the suit filed by the

plaintiff-respondent. He, therefore, submits hat the impugned

order is not tenable and deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Borde, learned advocate appearing

for respondent - plaintiff states that while it emerges on record,

on the face of it that the plaintiff is entitled to the claim in the

{4} wp10206-15

suit, in view of the proceedings, which have taken place,

particularly, measurement and acceptance of the amount

pursuant thereto. It is highly improper to contend that the

proceedings are not by legitimate body. The acts are of APMC

and would bind the petitioner. The petitioner is precluded from

vacillating stands. He further urges to allow the plaintiff to

withdraw the amount, for according to him, the bank is being

issuing notices after notices for recovery of amount of loan

availed by the plaintiff - respondent for completion of the

contract work. He submits that almost double amount had been

paid towards interest. The economic condition of the respondent

- plaintiff has been rendered precarious. In the circumstances,

he earnestly requests to allow the plaintiff - respondent to

withdraw the amount deposited and that the respondent -

plaintiff is ready to furnish security for the same.

6. Looking at the nature of contentions, although learned

advocate for respondent-plaintiff earnestly requests for

withdrawal of the amount, subject to security, such a request, at

this stage, is difficult to be acceded to, on the background in

which the matter has emerged before this court. In the fitness of

things, it would be expedient that having regard to the stands

taken by APMC, to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as

{5} wp10206-15

possible. The amount deposited in this court by the petitioner -

defendant be transferred to the trial court and the trial court

should direct the same to be invested in fixed deposit in a

nationalized bank earning interest and its fate shall be decided

upon decision on merits in the suit.

7. Special Civil Suit No.60 of 2011 pending before Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Jalgaon accordingly, be proceeded with and be

decided within a period of four months from the date of receipt

of writ of this order. It is expected that the parties will co-

operate for expeditious disposal of the suit. Non co-operation on

either side will be viewed seriously.

8. In the circumstances, impugned order stands modified by

which instead of figure "Rs.2,06,10,703/-", figure

"Rs.1,05,00,000/-" is replaced.

9. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. Rule is made

absolute in aforesaid terms.

10. In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil application

No.15945 of 2015 stands disposed of.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/wp10206-15