Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

M/S KALPATARU GINNING AND PRESSING COMPANY PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR J A KASAVAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court quashed the Authority's order and remitted the matter for re‑examination with a fair opportunity of hearing.

Summary

The petitioner, Kalpataru Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the concerned Authority that had allowed an application by the APMC on the ground that the petitioner had not produced receipts or supporting documents. The petitioner subsequently filed an affidavit‑in‑reply along with the required receipts, which were placed on record. Both parties agreed that the matter should be sent back to the Authority for verification of the newly produced documents. The High Court, noting the submission of the receipts, quashed the Authority’s earlier order and directed it to re‑examine the application, ensuring a fair hearing for both the petitioner and the APMC. The Court ordered that the Authority decide the matter in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Authority's order allowing the APMC's application should be set aside in view of the petitioner's later production of receipts.
  • Whether the matter should be remitted to the Authority for verification of documents and a fresh hearing.

Subjects

  • Writ Petition
  • Quashing Order
  • Remand
  • APMC
  • Receipt Verification
  • Fair Hearing

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10000



                                                                   55 WP No.6044.2017
                                                -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 6044 OF 2017

                 M/S KALPATARU GINNING AND PRESSING COMPANY PVT LTD
                              THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR J A KASAVA
                                              VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay B. Patil
              AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. D. Wange
              Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S. K. Chavan
                                                  ...

                                CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                    Date : 4th March, 2026

              PER COURT :-


              1.          Heard the learned counsel for respective sides.


              2.          The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered an

              affidavit-in-reply alongwith the receipts, which have now been placed

              on record. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Authority

              previously allowed the application filed by the APMC primarily on the

              grounds that no receipts or supporting documents had been produced

              during those proceedings.



              3.          In light of the fact that the petitioner has now submitted

              these documents, both counsels have reached a consensus that the
                                                         55 WP No.6044.2017
                                     -2-

matter should be remitted back to the Authority for verifying these

receipt.



4.            Accordingly, the order passed by the concerned Authority is

hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the

relevant receipts and documents before the Authority for its

consideration.



5.            The Authority is directed to re-examine the application,

ensuring that both the petitioner and the APMC are provided a fair

opportunity to be heard and the Authority shall decide the matter in

accordance with the law.



6.            With aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.




                                           (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Omkar Joshi


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.