ANANDRAO SHAMRAO BHOSALE Vs. SOMESHVAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the dispute before the Cooperative Court, Pune, against the respondents for declaration and injunction. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent has become disqualified and therefore ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors of Respondent no. 1 Karkhana and consequently the Chairman thereof. The petitioner contended that the order has been passed under Section 88 of the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act, 1960, on 26th December 1990 by the Authorised officer in which the respondent No. 2 was held liable for payment of approximately Rs. 16,00,000/-to the Karkhaaa along with one Shri S. S. Kakade. In view of this imposition of liability, the respondent No. 2 is disqualified under Section 73-FF (1) (iii) of the Co-operative Societies Act.

(2.) THE respondent No. 2 challenged the said order passed by the Authorised Officer dated 26th December, 1990 by filing Appeal No. 11 of 1991. In the said appeal respondent No. 2 filed an application for stay of the execution and operation of the order dated 26th December 1990 and the learned member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court (Bombay)Bench at Pune, passed the following order on 14th of February, 1991 : -

(3.) THE basis or the foundation for the dispute raised by the petitioner praying for declaration and injunction is the order passed by the Authorised officer dated 26th December, 1990 by which the liability was fastened upon the respondent No. 2 along with one Shri S. S. Kakade. If said foundation or basis does not exist, at least for the present, then obviously there can be no interim injunction restraining respondent No. 2 from holding the office as director and Chairman of the respondent No. 1 and carrying out its functions. Shri Y. R. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1975 SC 1590, Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and another, and submitted that the same conditions as laid down by the said judgment in Paragraph 31 thereof should be imposed upon the respondent No. 2 for holding the office and while carrying out its functions. The facts of the present case are totally different. In view of the order passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 11 of 1991, the execution and operation of the order dated 26th December, 1990 is stayed and the said stay has been confirmed by this Court by its order dated 6th March, 1991 in Writ Petition no. 1055 of 1991. The only modification that was made was instead of cash deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs, the respondent No. 2 was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of the nationalised bank. In view of this position, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The orders passed by both the Courts below in this matter are correct and require no interference.