Sujata Hemantsingh Bais vs Arjunlal S/O Ratanlal Jaiswal & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4385 Bom

                                                                 1                                        jg.wp4149.15.odt




                                                                                                                     
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                                       
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4149 OF 2015

    Sujata Hemantsingh Bais, 
    Aged about 54 years, 




                                                                                      
    Occupation - Business, 
    R/o Madhav Nagar, Gorakshan Road, 
    Akola, Tq. Dist. Akola.                                                                                    ... Petitioner
     
                      //   VERSUS  // 




                                                                    
    (1) Arjunlal S/o Ratanlal Jaiswal,     
          Aged about 87 years, 
          Occupation - Agriculturist and Business, 
          R/o Shelu Wada, Tq. Karanja, 
                                          
          Dist. Washim. 

    (2) State of Maharashtra,
          Through Collector, Washim, 
          Tq. Dist. Washim. 
          

           
    (3) State Excise Department,
       



          Mumbai through Commissioner, 
          Old Custom House, 
          Near Bombay Stock Exchange, 
          Fort, Mumbai. 





    (4) State Excise Department,
          Through Superintendent, 
          Washim, Tq. Dist. Washim.                                                                      ... Respondents 
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner 





    Shri A. M. Ghare, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 
    Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 2 to 4
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 CORAM :  A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                                                 DATE    :  2-8-2016.
    ORAL ORDER

In view of notice for final disposal, learned counsel for the parties

have been heard at length.

2 jg.wp4149.15.odt

2. The order dated 18-2-2015 passed by the appellate Court below

Exhibit 5 in RCA No. 3/15 rejecting the prayer made for staying the effect and

operation of the decree passed in RCS No. 90/07 is under challenge. The

respondent no. 1 is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for seeking

declaration that the partnership between the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner

stood dissolved. The prayer for rendition of accounts as well as perpetual

injunction was also made. The trial Court by its judgment dated 29-11-2014

partly decreed the suit and declared that the partnership stood dissolved with

effect from 5-4-2007. The accounts were directed to be taken by appointing the

Court Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid

judgment by filing an appeal. Along with the appeal, an application for staying

the effect and operation of the judgment of the trial Court came to be moved. By

the impugned order, the appellate Court rejected the said application holding

that as the partnership had been dissolved, the decree passed was only a

preliminary decree. Being aggrieved, this order has been challenged in the

present writ petition.

3. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties, I find that the

order rejecting the application for stay was passed on 18-2-2015. On 23-2-2015,

the concerned authorities deleted the name of the petitioner from the CL-3

license making the same subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the

petitioner. This position continues to operate as of today and the appeal is also

pending before the appellate Court. Hence, I find that the interests of justice

3 jg.wp4149.15.odt

would be served if the appeal itself is directed to be decided expeditiously instead

of adjudicating the respective contentions at this interlocutory stage.

4. In view of the aforesaid, following order is passed.

(i) The petitioner shall file private paper book in the appellate Court within

period of three weeks from today. The proceedings in R.C.A. No. 3/15 shall be

decided expeditiously and within a period of eight weeks from today.

(ii) The parties shall maintain the position as is prevailing today till the

appeal is decided. The respondent no. 1 who is presently operating the license

shall not induct any new partner for running the said license.

(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not examined the rival contentions on

merits of the matter and the appellate Court shall decide the appeal on its own

merits without being influenced by the present arrangement.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

JUDGE

wasnik

CERTIFICATE

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original singed Judgment."

Uploaded by : A. Y. Wasnik, P.A. Uploaded on : 4-8-2016