Parshuram S/O Mahadev Thombre And Others v. Agri. Produce Market Committee Hinganghat, Wardha Thr. Tukaram Chatrapati Chambhare Secy. And ORS
1 8.caw.2082.2022
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2082 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4659 OF 2022 Shri Parshuram s/o Mahadev Thombre and anr.
..vs..
Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Hinganghat and ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.P. Dhruv, Advocate for the petitioners. Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri S.K. Bhoyar, Advocate for applicants/interveners. CORAM: PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 28/02/2025.
Heard.
2.
By this application, the applicants nos.1 to 62 seeking intervention in the present petition by stating that they are agriculturist and license holder of respondent no.1/APMC, Hinganghat.
3.
It is submitted that, they have sold cotton through the APMC to the petitioners. However, the petitioners did not paid the amount of cotton sold to them within stipulated time, and therefore, the amount of Rs.1,19,08,760/- is outstanding. It is also their submission that before the Arbitrator, they appeared and submitted their grievance. As such, their presence will be helpful to this Court to decide the present petition.
4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly opposed the application by stating that the present applicants/interveners are already represented by the APMC, and therefore, there is no need to allow the application for intervention. He stated that for the same cause there will be two representatives, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
2 8.caw.2082.2022 5.
In the present matter, it is not disputed that the amount of present applicants/interveners is outstanding against the petitioners. All the applicants were heard by the Arbitrator and after granting them opportunity, decided the matter. In the light of this fact, the present application deserves to be allowed and applicants nos.1 to 62 can be added as an interveners in the matter.
6.
Hence, the application for intervention is allowed and disposed of.
7.
Necessary amendment be carried out by petitioner within two weeks.
8.
Learned Counsel Shri S.K. Bhoyar waives notice for newly added respondents/interveners nos.1 to 62. 9.
Stand over after two weeks.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL , J.
) Trupti