Shriram Narhar Kulkarni vs. A M More

wp318811.doc

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3188 OF 2011

Shriram Narhar Kulkarni .. Petitioner

versus

A.M.More & Ors .. Respondents

Mr.Kishor Patil i/by Mr.P.N.Joshi for the petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

24th JUNE 2011.

P.C.:

. Heard both sides. The Divisional Joint Registrar has rejected the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in a pending appeal and that is why this writ petition.

2 The petitioner preferred an appeal and his appeal is Appeal No.A-158 of 2010. He applied for stay during pendency of the appeal. The appeal was directed against an order of the Authorised Officer in proceedings under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. There were in all 15 appeals and in all these 15 appeals, 15 stay applications were

preferred. The Divisional Joint Registrar by a common order proceeded to reject the application. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his application for stay was argued by an advocate engaged by him. The Divisional Joint Registrar in the common order disposing of the 15 applications for stay held that the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by an order dated 14th December 2007 appointed an enquiry officer authorising him to conduct enquiry under section 88 and he has submitted a report on 6th October 2010 and fixed liability for damages of Rs.57.34 crores on the delinquents. The objection raised by the learned A.G.P is that this is an enquiry report submitted and there is no order passed in furtherance thereof which could be said to be an appealable order. In her submission, the damages have yet to be assessed and the liability is not yet fixed.

3 However, on perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is clear that he has not proceeded on the basis that the orders impugned before him are not at all appealable. He has gone by prima facie case on merits but

²

without adverting to the facts in individual appeals and the role attributed to the individual appellant, he has proceeded to dismiss the stay application. The stay applications were preferred by a set of appellants who were either Directors or Officers. The petitioner is one such officer being a Chief Executive Officer at the Head Office of the Nashik Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. The role attributed to him and his acts of omission and commission, while dealing with the assets and funds, ought to have been seen even at the prima facie stage. Further, whether he has been held liable to pay or make good any losses or damages caused to the bank ought to have been scrutinised even at prima facie stage. By a common order, his application could not have been disposed off. In these circumstances, the order under challenge is set aside to the extent of the petitioner's stay application and appeal. The stay application of the petitioner will stand revived to the file of the Divisional Joint Registrar for being dealt with and decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the contentions as raised in the petition as also the said application and each one of them shall be considered independently by the Appellate

³

Authority. The Appellate Authority shall endeavour to dispose of the stay application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)