Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA ALIAS VISHWANATH KISANRAO GUPTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as there is no ground for interference, but the petitioner may amend the dispute or file a fresh application with necessary particulars.
Summary
Petitioner Rajendra Gupte filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 seeking a declaration and perpetual injunction for the refund of deposits made to a co-operative society. The Co-operative Court rejected his application for a temporary injunction, holding that the amount claimed was not specified and necessary parties were not joined. The appellate court affirmed this decision, and the petitioner challenged the order through a writ petition. The High Court observed that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, the relief sought was vague, and the matter required evidence and proper parties before any injunction could be granted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, but allowed the petitioner to amend the dispute or file a fresh application with requisite details and parties.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the Co-operative Court's order rejecting a temporary injunction.
- Whether the petitioner’s application for injunction was maintainable despite lack of specified amount and parties.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of deposits without a detailed claim and evidence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- co-operative societies
- injunction
- refund of deposit
- writ jurisdiction
- Section 91
- procedural deficiency
- amendment
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4765
2-wp-15382-2025.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 15382 OF 2025
Rajendra Alias Vishwanath Kisanrao Gupte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bhosale Vishwambhar Keshav
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. K.B. Jadhavar
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard.
2. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated
04.10.2025 passed by Member Maharashtra State Co-operative
Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in A.O. No.9/2025,
whereby order dated 20.06.2025 passed by Judge Co-operative Court,
Latur below Exhibit-5 in Dispute No.297 of 2024 has been upheld.
3. The petitioner filed Dispute No.297 of 2024 under
Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against
respondents seeking relief for declaration and perpetual injunction.
The petitioner has particularly prayed to declare that petitioner and
other members of society are entitled for refund of deposit made with
society along with interest and sought direction to release the same by
electronic clearance. In pending dispute, petitioner filed an
application below Exhibit-5 seeking mandatory injunction to release
amount. The Co-operative Court rejected petitioner’s application filed
2-wp-15382-2025.odt
(2)
below Exhibit-5 observing that disputed questions needs to be tested
in trial after recording of evidence of parties, all members of society
are not made party. The petitioner has not filed dispute in
representative capacity and amount sought to be refunded is not
specified.
4. The petitioner preferred A.O No.09 of 2025 before Co-
operative Appellate Court at Aurangabad who concurred with Co-
operative Court and dismissed the appeal.
5. Mr. Bhosale, learned advocate appearing for petitioner
would submit that petitioner’s application for temporary injunction
has been primarily rejected because amount of petitioner’s
entitlement was not specified hence, no relief can be granted. The
Appellate Court also observed that unless both parties lead evidence,
no relief can be granted.
6. Apparently, petitioner has to prove entitlement for refund
of amount as per policy laid down in Government Resolution dated
21.01.2017. Looking to claim in application for temporary injunction,
it cannot be said that petitioner established prima facie case or he
would suffer irreparable loss. So far as second contention of petitioner
that bogus record has been prepared to show election of society, such
allegations needs to be tested after recording evidence. The Courts
rightly observed that reliefs claimed against election are vague and
unsustainable at this stage.
2-wp-15382-2025.odt
(3)
7. Considering the controversy raised and reasoning
adopted by both Courts, no case is made out to cause interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, if petitioner amends the
dispute or files an independent application giving necessary details or
adds necessary parties, he shall be at liberty to reiterate relief of
temporary injunction.
8. Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty in aforesaid
terms.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…