Bajaj Bhavan Owners Premises ... vs Consulate General Of Qatar And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 6284 Bom

                                                                      wp-5784-5785-2013



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION


                         WRIT PETITION NO. 5784 OF 2013
                                     AND
                         WRIT PETITION NO.5785 OF 2013
 
Bajaj Bhavan Owners Premises
Co-op. Society Ltd.,                                      ..       Petitioner.
       v/s.
Consulate General of Qatar 
& Another                                                 ..       Respondents.


Mr. S. S. Patwardhan with Mr. Sukmans Rait, for the Petitioner in both
the Petitions.
None for the Respondents. 

                                            CORAM:  M.S.SANKLECHA, J.

                                            DATE    :  16th AUGUST, 2017.

P.C:-

None appears on behalf of the Respondents in both the Petitions, though served. This Court while issuing notice by order dated 1st August, 2013 to the Respondents, had stated that the Writ Petitions itself may be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2 The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the provisions of Section 86 of Code of Civil Procedure (Code) would have any application to the dispute filed against the Consulate General of the foreign country under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act).

Sarnobat                                                                              1 of 2





                                                                         wp-5784-5785-2013


3               Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Murlidhar Datoba Nimanka & Others v/s. Harish Balkrushna Latane & Others, 2003 (4), Mh.L.J., 196 and Tarkude Hotels Pvt., Ltd., v/s. Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd., Others, 2011 (5) Mh.L.J., 812 to contend that Section 91 of the Act itself starts with non-obstante clause. Therefore, the provisions of any other law including the Code would have no application and the proceedings will be governed by the Act, alone.

4 The aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the Petitioner, dealt with application of Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code (Murlidhar Datoba) and application of Section 10 and 151 of the Code (Tarkude Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,). In this case, we are concerned with a specific bar of filing any dispute against a Foreign State/ envoy as provided under Section 86 of the Code. This issue would require detailed examination.

5 In the above view, RULE. Both the Petitions are expedited with liberty to mention. Hamdast is permitted.

                                                            (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)




Sarnobat                                                                                2 of 2