Bombay High Court
Sayed Osman S/O Naziroddin Khatib vs Manas Agro Industries And ... on 4 December, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3190.2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 3190/2016
Sayed Osman S/o Naziroddin Khatib
Age 79 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Lal Godown, Bagwan galli,
Latur, Tahsil and Dist. Latur ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Manas Agro Industries and Infrastructure
Limited, through its Chairman,
R/o Dinkarnagar, Jamani, Tahsil-Selu,
Dist. Wardha
2] The Managing Directors,
Manas Agro Industries and Infrastructure Limited,
R/o 5th Floor, Gupta Tower, Science College Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001
... RESPONDENTS
=====================================
Shri D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri N.H. Joshi, Amicus Curiae
=====================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED :- 4 December, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
As none appears for the respondents, though served, Shri
N.H. Joshi, AGP is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
Heard Shri D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for the petitioner and
AGP Shri N.H. Joshi (Amicus Curiae)
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:28:02 :::
2 wp3190.2016.odt
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2] The petitioner/decree holder has challenged the order
passed by the Executing Court disposing the execution proceedings filed
by the petitioner observing that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to
execute the award passed by the Co-operative Court.
3] As the learned advocate for the petitioner/decree holder
submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment given by this Court
in the case of Onkar Rajaram Wathodkar vs Ramnarayan Khatod and
sons reported in 1984 Mh.L.J 453 and there is no appearance on behalf
of the respondents, Shri N.H. Joshi, Advocate is appointed to assist the
Court.
4] The impugned order shows that though the provisions of
Section 98(a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1960") were pointed out to the
Executing Court, the execution proceedings are disposed recording that
the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute the award passed by the
Co-operative Court. The Executing Court has not properly appreciated
the provisions of Section 98(a) of the Act of 1960 and has committed an
error by concluding that the award passed by the Co-operative Court is
to be executed by the liquidator as per the provisions of the Code of
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:28:02 :::
3 wp3190.2016.odt
Civil Procedure.
5] The learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned
amicus curiae have submitted that the point involved in the petition is
covered by the judgment given in the case of Onkar Rajaram Wathodkar
(supra), and the execution proceedings by the petitioner would lie
before the Civil Court.
6] Hence, the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1] The impugned order is set aside.
2] The execution proceedings i.e. Regular
Darkhast No. 10/2012 filed by the petitioner/decree holder
are restored to the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Seloo.
3] The Executing Court shall proceed with the
execution in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
4 wp3190.2016.odt
As the respondents have not put in appearance and have
not assisted the Court and amicus curiae is required to be appointed, the
respondents shall deposit Rs. 20,000/- with the Registry of this Court
within one month and file affidavit of compliance on record of the
petition. On deposit of the amount, it be given to Shri N.H. Joshi,
Advocate.
The advocate for the petitioner shall send the copy of this
judgment to the respondents by Speed Post Acknowledgment Due and
file affidavit of compliance within two months.
JUDGE
A n s a r i
