Bombay High Court
Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni ... vs The District Consumer Disputes ... on 19 December, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, M. W. Chandwani
60.wp.6972.2022- 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6972 OF 2022
PETITIONER :- Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni,
Multi State Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd; Jalgaon
Through its Liquidator
Chaitanya S/o. Haribhau Nasare,
Aged about 53 Yrs., Occ. Service,
Having its Head Office at E-2/3/4
Raymond Chowfuli, MIDC,
Ajantha Road, Jalgaon -425003
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Washim at Civil
Court, Old Building, Near Tahsil
Office, Civil Lines, Washim
2. The Collector,
Collector Office, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.
3. The Tahsildar,
The Tahsil Office, Jalgaon
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.
4. Kamalakar Balaji Dhawale,
Aged about 74 Yrs., Occ. Retired,
R/o. Opposite SBI ATM, Malegaon,
Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim
Kavita
60.wp.6972.2022- 2/5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr S. P. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.M.Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.V.K.Paliwal,counsel for respondent No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
M.W.CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE : 19.12.2022.
ORAL J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)
(1) Heard.
(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the society was not a party before Consumer Forum and it
was also not the party to the certificate issued by District
Consumer Redressal Forum, Washim and therefore, no judgment
and order directing the society to pay to the complainant an
amount of Rs.10,88,052/- together with the compensation could
have been delivered by the District Consumer Redressal Forum. It
is also submitted that when the direction for payment of certain
Kavita
60.wp.6972.2022- 3/5
amount together with compensation was issued to the founder
chairman and the directors of the Society, there was no reason for
the Consumer Redressal Forum, to have directed the Union Bank
of India, which maintains accounts of the Society, to freeze the
account and that too at a time when the Society had already been
put to liquidation and the liquidator appointed. It is further
submitted that after appointment of the liquidator, the question of
priority of dues would arise and ordinarily, the dues of the Society
and the statutory dues would take precedence over the dues of the
private persons like the respondent No.4.
(4) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that
respondent No.4 does not wish to file any reply in the matter and
is ready to argue the petition finally. However, respondent Nos.1
to 3 have not filed any reply and learned AGP submits that he
does not have any instructions in the matter. We take that
respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not wish to file any reply or otherwise
they would have given instructions to the learned AGP.
Kavita
60.wp.6972.2022- 4/5
(5) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the
matter can be remanded back to the Consumer Forum with a
direction to reconsider the issue and dispose it of within time
bound period in accordance with law.
(6) In normal course, we would have accepted the
suggestion of learned counsel for respondent No.4, but the facts
and circumstances of this case indicate that this is a case which is
an exception to what is seen by us as normal. The judgment and
order dated 30th January 2015 issues a direction for payment of
certain amount together with compensation amount against the
founder chairman and directors of the petitioner Society and not
against the petitioner Society as such. Similarly, the recovery
certificate has also been issued against the Founder Chairman and
Directors of the petitioner Society and not against the petitioner
Society. In such circumstances, the account of the petitioner
Society could not have been directed to be frozen by the
concerned forum. If any account/s was/were to be directed to be
frozen, it were the account/s of the Founder Chairman or the
Directors of the Society in their individual capacities, but that has
Kavita
60.wp.6972.2022- 5/5
not been done in this case and therefore, the impugned order
cannot be upheld by this Court. Similar is the view taken by the
learned Single Judge in criminal Writ Petition No.798 of 2021
(Chaitanya Haribhau Nasare Vs. Sau. Mayuri Milind Kabra. In
these circumstances and this is the reason why, it is not possible
for this Court to remand the matter back to the Consumer Forum
and therefore the suggestion given by learned counsel for
respondent No.4 is rejected.
(7) In the result, we are of the opinion that this Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed partly in terms of
prayer clause (b) which reads as under:
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned
communication/order dated 14/10/2022
issued/passed by the Learned Tahsildar Jalgaon,
thereby freezed the bank account, bearing
No.341602010192314 of Union Bank of India,
Branch Navipeth, Jalgaon, of the petitioner.
(8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
( M.W.CHANDWANI,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
Kavita
Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN
TAYADE
P. A.
Signing Date:20.12.2022 16:22
