Bombay High Court
KISAN SAKHARAM MORE AND ORSversusJEEVAN SANDHYA CHS LTD AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that under Article 227 it cannot issue a direction to the cooperative court to decide the pending applications in a time‑bound manner.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a status‑quo order and a temporary injunction pending the resolution of a dispute before a cooperative court. They alleged that the cooperative court had not decided their applications within a reasonable time. The respondents argued that the applications were complete and that it was the petitioners' responsibility to press them before the cooperative court. The High Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that it cannot direct the cooperative court to decide the applications in a time‑bound manner. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to approach the learned judge of the cooperative court for expeditious disposal, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct a cooperative court to decide pending applications for status‑quo and temporary injunction?
- Can the High Court issue a direction compelling the cooperative court to dispose of applications within a specified time?
Subjects
- status quo
- temporary injunction
- jurisdiction
- Article 227
- cooperative court
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:33194
Renuka 6-WP-10298-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10298 OF 2026
Kisan Sakharam More and Ors ...Petitioners
V/s.
Jeevan Sandhya CHS Ltd and Ors ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Avinash Fatangare a/w Ms. Archana Shelar.
Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/b M/s. Raj Legal for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Ms. Prabha Badadare for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 11 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The limited grievance raised in the Petition is about non
decision of Application Aled by the Petitioners/Disputants for grant of
status quo during pendency of the Dispute. It appears that additionally,
Application at Exh-5 is Aled for temporary injunction.
2) Mr. Shekhawat, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that the pleadings in both the
Applications are already complete. In that view of the matter, it is for the
Petitioners to press both the Applications before the Co-operative Court.
In a jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court
cannot issue a direction to the Co-operative Court to decide the
Page No.1 of 2
11 August 2026
Renuka 6-WP-10298-2026.docx
Applications preferred by the Petitioners in the time bound manner.
Petitioners shall according request the learned Judge of the Co-operative
Court to decide both the Applications in an expeditious manner.
3) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 11 August 2026
Date: 12/08/2026 10:46:31
Checking your session…