Dnyaneshwar Trust Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14169 Bom

                                         -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                907 WRIT PETITION NO.1371 OF 2020
     WITH WP/1375/2020 WITH WP/1374/2020 WITH WP/1373/2020
                      WITH WP/3562/2020

   LOKNETE MARUTRAO GHULE PATIL DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI
   SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD THROUGH IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR
                          VERSUS
          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                           WITH
             908 WRIT PETITION NO.1722 OF 2020
  WITH WP/1724/2020 WITH WP/1723/2020 WITH WP/1725/2020

             DNYANESHWAR TRUST THROUGH IT'S MANAGER
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr.H.D.Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ)

DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2021

PER COURT :

1. By these petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned

orders passed by respondent No.2 refusing permission u/s 107 of the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, so as to array the Liquidator in

the pending special darkhasts.

khs/Sept. 2021/1371-d

2. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

Advocates for the respective sides, we have perused the petition paper

books with their assistance.

3. A short issue has been raised before us. Whether respondent

No.2 would be justified in refusing permission to these petitioners to

array the liquidator so as to proceed with the special darkhast

proceedings in which they seek to execute a decree passed by the Trial

Court.

4. We have perused the impugned orders, which are identical.

Though the order runs into about 1½ page, the last paragraph appears

to be the reasons assigned by respondent No.2. It has been observed by

way of a conclusion that these petitioners have not indicated whether

any amounts towards supply of sugarcane are payable to them from the

Devgiri Co-operative Sugar Factory. We find the said reason to be quite

cryptic and unconvincing.

5. In Waman Vyankatesh Ruikar Versus Registrar, Co-operative

Societies and others [2002(III) CLR 981], the learned Division Bench of

khs/Sept. 2021/1371-d

this Court concluded that in so far as matters pertaining to the

workmen/labour seeking recovery of their unpaid wages is concerned, a

permission u/s 107 may not be necessary.

6. In Baburao Dadarao Kolhe and others Vs. State of Maharashtra

and others 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 898 the learned Division Bench of this

Court considered the scheme of the Act and noted that if permission u/s

107 of the 1960 Act is not granted, the claimants would be left high

and dry and would not be able to recover their amounts. It was also

observed that the cause of justice would advance by setting aside the

impugned order refusing leave u/s 107. It was also noted that a cryptic

order was passed for rejecting the application.

7. In yet another judgment delivered on 02/02/2007 by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in WP No.4082/2006 filed by Shri

Dnyaneshwar Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another and

connected matters, it is held that the permission sought by the

petitioners for arraying the liquidator as a party to the execution

proceedings, is merely for enabling the participation of the Liquidator

or for proceedings in the case which is rendered stagnant. The

khs/Sept. 2021/1371-d

liquidator is always at liberty to take a stand as may be permissible to

him in the execution proceedings. Seeking permission sought under

Section 107 is a mere formality.

8. In view of the above, all these petitions are allowed. The

impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 u/s 107 stand quashed

and set aside.

9. We grant the application filed by these petitioners seeking

permission u/s 107 and thereby permit these petitioners to implead the

liquidator in the special darkhast cases. As the execution proceedings

pertain to the year 2011 and the original suit was instituted in 2002

which is almost 19 years ago, We direct the learned Executing Court to

expedite the hearing in the darkhast proceedings so as to be concluded

on or before 30/04/2022.

     ( S.G. MEHARE, J. )                   ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )




khs/Sept. 2021/1371-d