1

ITEM NO.44                 COURT NO.3                   SECTION IX

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).101/2008

(From the judgment and order dated 25/07/2007 in WP No. 3981/2003   of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD)

ADARSH GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY                  Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                          Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report ) WITH  SLP(C) NO. 2631 of 2008 – With appln. for permission to file addl. documents and with office  report

Date: 06/04/2009  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

For Petitioner(s)    Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr.Adv.                      Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.                      Ms. Abha R. Sharma,Adv.

                    Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv.                      For Respondent(s)    Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv.                      Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv.                      Mrs. Arundhati, Adv.

                    Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, Adv.                                                 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                            O R D E R  

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.

2

         (S. Thapar)         PS to Registrar

(Madhu Saxena) Court Master

The signed order is placed on the file.

3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2204 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.101 of 2008)

ADARSH GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY ...APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2205 OF 2009 @ SLP(C)NO. 2631 OF 2008       

O R D E R

Leave granted.

In  this  case  the  question  which  arose  before  the  High  Court  concerned  the  

validity  of  the  Circulars  dated  8th January,  2001 and 3rd October,  2002,  issued  by  the  

Registrar of the Co-operative Societies stating that Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies Act,  1960 would continue to apply even after commencement of Multi-

State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.  The said question has not been answered by the  

High Court.   

At this stage it may be mentioned that the Multi-State Co-operative Act, 1984,  

when initially  enacted,  was stayed in  some conjoint  cases.   However,  that  was not  the  

position in the facts of the present case.

In the present case a neat question of  law arose for decision before the High  

Court, namely, whether the State Authority could have invoked Maharashtra Co-operative  

Societies Act, 1960 with respect to the Co-operative Society registered under Multi-State  

Co-operative  Societies  Act,  1984  (later  replaced  by  2002  Act).   This  question  remains  

unanswered and hence we remit this case to the High Court to consider the same.  We may

4

add that auction sale has been set aside and refund has been made.

However,  it  is  stated  on  behalf  of  the  Peoples  Cooperative  Bank  Limited  

(Respondent No. 4 herein) that the outstanding as of date allegedly is Rs.1.86 crores.  The  

quantification  is  being  disputed  by  the  appellant  herein.   Therefore,  we  are  directing  

respondent No. 4 herein to initiate proceedings under Multi-State Co-operative Societies  

Act, 2002 within a period of four weeks from today. Respondent No. 4 is further directed to  

seek interim reliefs under the 2002 Act within two weeks from the date of institution of  

proceedings. If proceedings are so instituted, we are directing the Competent Authority  

under the 2002 Act to expeditiously hear and dispose of such Application within a period of  

three months from the date of the institution of proceedings. The attachment levied on the  

assets of the appellant under Section 101 read with Section 156 of Multi-State Cooperative  

Societies Act, 1960 will however continue till such time as the Competent Authority under  

2002 Act passes Interim Orders which when passed will supersede orders of attachment  

under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Before  concluding,  it  may  be  clarified  that  if  the  High  Court  finds  that  

respondent No. 4 herein has obtained substantial reliefs under the 2002 Act as directed  

above then it may consider disposing of the pending Writ Petition No. 3981 of 2003 in the  

light of the orders passed by the Authority under 2002 Act without going into the larger  

question of law framed hereinabove.

Subject to what is  stated above,  these civil  appeals  stand disposed of  with no  

order as to costs.

....................J. [ S.H. KAPADIA ]

5

New Delhi, ....................J April 06, 2009 [ AFTAB ALAM ]