Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Nashik District Central ... vs The Nashik Co-Operative Sugar Factory ... on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23711/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-06-2014
in WP No. 1289/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
THE NASHIK DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE NASHIK CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY
EMPLOYEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 121287/2022 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 92350/2017 - SEEKING DISPOSAL OF SLP)
Date : 13-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR
Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. M. Veeraragavan, Adv.
Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv.
Mr. Amit K. Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Shreyansh Agrawal, Adv.
Digitally signed by
NEETA SAPRA
Date: 2023.10.16
Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv.
16:48:22 IST
Reason:
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
1
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. No.121287/2022
Application has been filed in view of the resolution of the dispute inter se the petitioner, secured creditor, the employees and the Cooperative Society. These parties are stated to be satisfied with the settlement. However, there are amounts owned on account of Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund and amounts have been allocated even for that purpose. However, learned counsel for the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund submits that there are larger amounts outstanding than what has been allocated and the same includes an element of penalty. However, the recovery process initiated qua provident fund has been stayed by the Appellate Tribunal and that Tribunal will determine the fate of it.
We are of the view that there is no purpose for not allowing the application but with the liberty that if the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund succeeds in the proceedings, the recovery on the balance amount can take place in accordance with the process permitted.
Application is accordingly allowed.
In view of the settlement, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
2 The amount deposited in this Court along with the accrued interest may be dispersed in terms of the application and if there is any further amount available, the same be also dispersed proportionately in terms of the settlement.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
3