← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/3807/2016rejected at admission stage

Maharashtra Gramin Bank Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd Thru It Chairman Ramrao N Shinde And Or v. Sudharshan Shankarrao Pandagale And Others

2016-04-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil P. Deshmukh2 pages

{1} wp3807-16 drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2016 Maharashtra Gramin Bank Karmachari PETITIONERS Sahakari Pat Sanstha Limited & Others

VERSUS

Sudharshan Shankarrao Pandagale & others RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. Shahaji B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the petitioner .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] DATE : 4 th APRIL, 2016 ORDER :

1.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioners.

2.

The petition has been purportedly moved claiming to the aggrieved by grant of amendment application Exhibit-35 in Dispute No. CCN/29/2015, whereunder corresponding to the subsequent events, prayer for mandatory injunction has been sought to be inserted. A resolution dated 17th August, 2014 is the subject matter of the dispute, consequent upon which the head office was to be shifted at Aurangabad. Temporary injunction putting restraint on shifting of the head office had been sought along with the dispute. However, said request had

{2} wp3807-16 been rejected. The shifting of head office accordingly had taken place and with reference to that application Exhibit-35 had been moved. The other corresponding averments have also been sought to be incorporated in the pleadings.

3.

The co-operative court as well as the revisional court, having regard to aforesaid allowed the amendment to be incorporated.

4.

Taking into consideration that the impugned order is in respect of amendment to the dispute, the approach which has been exhibited by the co-operative and the revisional courts can hardly be amenable to be interfered with under the discretionary powers of this court, particularly having regard to the subject matter involved.

5.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is not being entertained and stands rejected.

6.

Needless to refer to that consequent upon amendment to the plaint, it is for the petitioners to amend written statement, if any and if so desired.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] drp/wp3807-16