JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD THR ITS MANAGER BHIKAN V WAGHversusBELGANGA SAHEKARI SAKHAR KARKHNA EMPLOYEES UNION THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY H B DESALE AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:45922-DB


                                                 1            RA 171-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2026
                                                IN
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2017
                                               AND
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 10437 OF 2021

                 Jalgaon District Central Co-operative
                 Bank Limited, Jalgaon,
                 Through its Manager,
                 Shri Bhikan Vasant Wagh,
                 Age : 55 years, Occu. : Service,
                 C/o. Jalgaon District Central Co-operative
                 Bank Limited, Jalgaon.                                  .. Applicant

                        Versus

                 1.     Belganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana,
                        Employees Union,
                        Through its General Secretary,
                        Shri Himmatrao s/o Bhikanrao Desale,
                        Age : 70 years,
                        Occu. : Retired Employee & Office Bearer,
                        R/o. Shivshakti Nagar, Bhadgaon Road,
                        Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
                        Tq. Shiruranantapal, Dist. Latur.

                 2.     The Union of India,
                        Through its Secretary,
                        Ministry of Labour.

                 3.     The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through its Secretary,
                        Ministry of Co-operative and Sugar,
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

                 4.     The Assistant P. F. Commissioner,
                        Recovery Officer, SRO Nashik,
                             2            RA 171-2026.odt


     Plot No. P-11, “Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan”,
     MIDC Satpur, Nashik – 422 007.

5.   The Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
     Office of Assistant Commissioner Labour,
     Rajendra Bhavan, Vivekanand Nagar,
     Zilla Peth, Jalgaon.

6.   The Commissioner of Sugar,
     Maharashtra State, Pune,
     Shivajinagar, Pune -5.

7.   The Liquidator,
     Belganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
     Bhoras, Belganga Nagar, Tq. Chalisgaon,
     Dist. Jalgaon.                                  .. Respondents

Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents-State
Mr. A. R. Borulkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Mr. N. K. Choudhari, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. D. B. Thoke, Advocate for Respondent No. 8 in W.P.(Through
V.C.).

                      CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                              JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

Date on which reserved for order : 07th September, 2026.

Date on which order pronounced : 01st October, 2026.

FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :-

1.   By way of this application, a review is sought of an interim

order passed by this Court dated 25.08.2026 in Writ Petition

No. 333/2017 and Writ Petition No. 10437/2021. By way of an

interim order this Court permitted to withdraw an amount of
                              3            RA 171-2026.odt


Rs. 6,16,89,365/- (Rs. Six Crore Sixteen Lakh Eighty Nine

Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Five only) alongwith accrued

interest. It was kept open for the individual members of the

petitioner union in Writ Petition No. 333/2017 to lodge their

claim for adjudication with the Provident Fund authorities and

adjudicate the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of

individual applications. It was further directed to the P. F.

authorities to disburse the amount to the eligible employees on

verifying their entitlement. The present applicant/respondent No.

7 bank in Writ Petition No. 333/2017 has filed this application

seeking review of the said order as the amount which is permitted

to be withdrawn from the office of this Court is the amount

deposited by the said bank in the office of this Court pursuant to

order passed by this Court.


2.   Learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the applicant vehemently

argued that the amount deposited by the bank is the amount of

the shareholders. He further submits that, when the parties are

ready to argue the petition for final disposal there was no need to

pass such an interim order. The entitlement of the members of the

petitioner Union is yet to be determined. There is even a question

of locus standi of the Union which, according to him, it does not
                               4             RA 171-2026.odt


have. An order though appears to be interim order, however, it is

in the nature of final order. The petition is pending since 2017.

The pleadings are also completed. However, the Court without

hearing the matter for final disposal has passed the interim order

at such a stage. When the petition itself is fixed for final hearing

on 29.10.2026, an interim order is passed in hasty manner

without considering the merits of the petition.


3.    His further submissions are that the issue about the liability

to pay the amount to the members of the petitioner society is yet

to be adjudicated. Even a dispute is pending between the bank

and added respondent No. 8 i.e. auction purchaser of the sugar

factory. The writ is not maintainable against the Co-operative

Society i.e. the present bank. This Court has already passed an

interim order in Writ Petition No. 2969/2016 i.e. filed by the bank

against the Provident Fund authorities. Pending the said petition,

no party has filed any proceedings for determining their rights. In

Civil Application No. 268/2017 in the said writ petition this Court

has allowed the bank to proceed with the auction sale. It is the

amount of the said sale proceeds which is deposited in this Court

of Rs. Eleven Crores only. Only to secure the interest of the parties

the amount was directed to be deposited in this Court. However,
                              5              RA 171-2026.odt


the said was not at any stretch of imagination can be said to be

deposited towards the P.F. contribution of the members of the

petitioner Union. In the earlier order this Court has clearly

observed that the claim of the P.F. authorities would be dealt with

after the decision in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In

his submission, that adjudication is still pending. Though the said

appeal is dismissed now a writ petition is pending before Single

Judge. In the consent terms in Writ Petition No. 2969/2016,

respondent No. 8 has clearly accepted the liability to pay the

amount of P.F. It is thus for respondent No. 8 i.e. Ambaji Trading

Company to pay the P.F. dues. Now the auction purchaser has

stepped into the shoes of applicant bank and thus it is entirely for

the said respondent to pay the P.F. amount. He submits that all

these main questions are not dealt with by the Court while passing

the order. The error apparent on the face of record is clear in his

submission.


4.    This application is vehemently opposed by the learned

advocate Mr. Choudhari for P.F. authorities and other respondents.

It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Choudhari that the P.F.

authorities have the first charge over the property. This position is

accepted even by the bank. He submits that this Court considered
                               6              RA 171-2026.odt


the order passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 27740/2011 filed by very same

bank. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly

held that the first charge over the property of the debtor is of the

P.F. authorities. This aspect is rightly considered by this Court

while passing the impugned order.


5.    In any case, in his submission, the amount would be lying

idle in this Court till the decision of the writ petition. It is not in

the interest of any of the parties to keep the amount idle in this

Court. The only dispute is about the adjudication of the claims of

the members of the petitioner Union. For that, in his submission,

this Court has taken care by directing the authorities to consider

the claims on its own merits and only thereupon to disburse the

amount. He thus submits that, there is no error apparent on the

face of record.

6.    He opposes this application on one more ground that the

order sought to be reviewed is only an interim order which is

always subject to final order that would be passed in the writ

petition and at that stage care can be taken of the interest of all

the parties. Presently as the employees are waiting since long to

get their amount rightly an order is passed. During the pendency
                               7              RA 171-2026.odt


of the proceeding some of the employees even died and at least

their heirs would get the amount. He submits that, no new ground

is raised. All the arguments are already considered in the

impugned order.


7.    Learned advocate Mr. Thoke for the purchaser also

vehemently argued that the adjudication is still going on between

the creditor and the purchaser. There are dues of the workmen.

The fact that there are dues of the workmen was within the

knowledge of the bank. He also supports the order.


8.    Learned A.G.P. for State and learned advocate Mr. Borulkar

for respondent No. 2 prays for passing appropriate order.


9.    This Court has considered the arguments. An order passed is

only an interim order. The amount directed to be withdraw by the

P.F. authorities is lying in this Court since 2017. There is no dispute

that on the property the first charge is of the P.F. authorities. The

Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 27740/2011 has also clearly

held that P.F. authorities have first charge over the property. Thus,

there is no dispute about the charge over the property of the P.F.

authorities. The dispute between the purchaser and the bank is

already going on in Writ Petition No. 2969/2016. The purchaser
                              8            RA 171-2026.odt


has already accepted the liability to pay the amount of P.F. out of

the purchase amount. Only the bank has deposited some amount

in the office of this Court. So far as remaining amount is

concerned, the proceeding between bank and the purchaser is

going on. It is also submitted during the course of argument that

the bank has already initiated proceeding under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the purchasers which is going

on in the Criminal Court. Thus, the bank is entitled to receive the

amount from the purchaser including the amount as per the

undertaking of the purchaser of P.F. dues. There is a charge in

favour of the bank on the property auctioned.


10.   This petition is pending since 2017. Though this Court has

fixed the petition for hearing on 29.10.2026, it is common

knowledge that the Courts are not in a position to take up the

final hearing matters. Therefore, it was considered by this Court

that admittedly there are dues of P.F. authorities. So far as

entitlement of the employees of the Karkhana which is auctioned

there is no dispute. This Court has also taken care directing the

authorities to consider the claim of each individual workmen and

thereafter only to disburse the amount. The dues are in tune of Rs.

6,16,89,365/- (Rs. Six Crore Sixteen Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand
                               9              RA 171-2026.odt


Three Hundred Sixty Five only) and therefore, out of Rs. Eleven

Crore only that much amount is allowed to be withdrawn by the

P.F. authorities. This Court does not find that any prejudice is

caused to any of the parties by passing the orders. All these

submissions made in this application were also made when

impugned order is passed. Those submissions also requires

consideration at the stage of final hearing of the writ petitions.


11.   This Court thus finds that, there is no error apparent on the

face of record as such. The submission that the bank’s money is

public money, there is no doubt about the said submission.

However, that money is lying idle in this Court is also equally a

fact. Presently, the amount is not of use to anyone. In that view it

is directed to be disbursed to the employees. The question of locus

standi of the Union is to be decided at the stage of final hearing.

This Court, as such, does not find any error apparent on the face

of record in the application. While passing final order care can be

taken about interest of the bank.

12.   So far as power to review is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex

Court very recently delivered a judgment in the case of

Malleeswari Vs. K. Sugunand Another, AIR Online 2025 SC 827.

Paragraph Nos. 16 & 17 are reproduced from the judgment which
                                  10               RA 171-2026.odt


read as under :

         “16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent
         error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra
         reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The
         intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to
         correct apparent errors instead of the higher court
         correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed
         reasoning is not warranted.

         17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of
         review and appellate power, we restate the power and
         scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed
         up as follows :

         17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter
         or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that,
         despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not
         within their knowledge or could not be produced by the
         party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

         17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
         may be invoked if there is something more than a mere
         error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face
         of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a
         mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established
         by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where
         there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said
         to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

         17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’
         means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least
         analogous to those specified in the other two categories.”


13.   Considering all above, this Court does not find that, a case is

made out to entertain this application. The review application

stands dismissed.

( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                            ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

14.   At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant seeks stay
                                 11              RA 171-2026.odt


to the effect of this order.


15.      At the request of learned advocate for the applicant, effect of

the order be stayed for three (03) weeks from today.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )



P.S.B.