The Maharashtra Co Operative ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7128 Bom

                                                  1




                                                                                    
                                    FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.




                                                            
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                           
                                  RAST NO.23276 OF 2014
                                            IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO.7067 OF 2005.




                                               
      The Maharashtra Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. Bhusawal,
        Dist.Jalgaon Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.
                              
    Office Notes, Office
    Memoranda of Coram,
                                              Court's or Judge's orders
    appearances, Court's
                             
    orders or directions
    and        Registrar's
    orders.
                             Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr.S.D.Kulkarni,
                             advocate for the applicant.
                             Mrs.P.V.Diggikar, A.G.P. for the State.
      


                                                   CORAM       : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
   



                                                                 K.L.WADANE,JJ.

                                                   Date        : 09.12.2016.
                             PER COURT :





                             1.      Heard.

2. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Review Applicant

submits that when this Court dismissed the Writ Petition bearing

W.P.No.7067/2005, under its order dated 25.4.2004, this Court did

not consider the aspect of rehabilitation. It also ought to have

been considered that the valuation of the property which was called

by the Court was more than Rs.1,95,00,000/- (Rupees one crore

ninety five lacs), whereas the property has been sold only for

Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lacs fifty thousand). According to

learned counsel, the machines are sold at throwaway price as scrap

and such an auction sale can not be upheld. The efforts ought to be

made for revival. According to the learned counsel under the garb

of sale of three machines, other machines are also been taken away.

3. We have also heard learned A.G.P.

4. The jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining Review is in a

narrow compass. Review can not be entertained as an appeal in

disguise. While passing the order in Writ Petition No.7067/2005,

we had considered that it is a case of distress sale and the valuation

report of Rs.1,95,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ninety five lacs) is

for the entire machines and only three machines were subject

matter of auction. We did not find any illegality or irregularity in

the process of auction. The Society was closed since the year 1998.

The said machines were auctioned in the year 2005. The said

machines would be obsolete and would not be of any use now.

5. Considering above, the Review Application is disposed of.

No costs.

(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

Dt.09.12.2016.

asp/office/Rast23276.14