Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni v. Central Registrar Of Cooperative Socities And ANR.

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8560/2017 and CM Nos. 35236/2017 (stay) and CM 35237/2017 PRAMOD BHAICHAND RAISONI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Rakesh Munjal, Sr. Adv. with Mr Ankur Arora and Mr Rajendra Singh and Mohd. Atif, Advs.

versus CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCITIES AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC and Ms J. Priyadarshini, Adv. for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R

% 25.09.2017 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the respondent No.1/Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 86 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2000, appointing the respondent No.2 as a Liquidator of Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni Multi-State Cooperative Society Limited, having its registered office at Jalgaon, Maharashtra. The petitioner also seeks to assail an order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 27.10.2015, passed by the respondent No.1. 2.

We may note that the present petition has been listed before us with an objection raised by the Registry with regard to its maintainability, for lack of territorial jurisdiction. We have perused the averments made in the present petition and are prima facie of the opinion that even though a part W.P.(C) 8560/2017

of the cause of action may have arisen in this Court as the impugned orders have been passed by authorities based in Delhi, that alone would not be a persuasive factor for the reason that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Maharashtra.

3.

At this stage, Mr Munjal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states, on instructions, that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition while reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the Competent Court vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, i.e., the Bombay High Court.

4.

Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J DEEPA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 bg W.P.(C) 8560/2017