Bombay High CourtMCA/206/2016dismissedrule discharged

Shri Shivkishan S/O Mulchand Agrawal Through P.O.A. Holder, Shri Sapan S/O S. Nandi v. Smt. Sujata Tarachand Makhija And Others

2016-08-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq3 pages

1 mca206.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.206/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1460/2006 (D) Shri Shivkishan s/o Mulchand Agrawal ..VS..

Smt. Sujata Tarachand Makhija and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 1.8.2016.

Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, Advocate for the applicant - original petitioner.

The applicant - petitioner seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court declaring that the allotment of plot in favour of the applicant - petitioner is illegal and the sale deed executed in favour of the applicant - petitioner on 25th October, 1989 is quashed. This Court has rejected the claim of non-applicant No.1 - respondent No.1 for allotment of plot in dispute and has left it to the Society to consider the allotment of plot in dispute after following the procedure as was followed in 1989 while allotting the plot to other members.

The submission on behalf of the applicant - petitioner is that the non-applicant No.1 - respondent No.1 was not the member of the Co-operative Society and, therefore, she could not have maintained the dispute before the Co-operative Court.

The non-applicant No.1 - respondent No.1 had

2 mca206.16 filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.136/2016 challenging the judgment passed by this Court and the same is dismissed.

The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the non-applicant No.1 - respondent No.1 having been dismissed, in my view, it would not be proper for this Court now to re-examine the issue of membership of non-applicant No.1 - respondent No.1. The miscellaneous civil application is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.

3 mca206.16 CERTIFICATE original signed Judgment/Order".

Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar.

Uploaded On : 5.8.2016.

Personal Assistant.