w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Rajendra Pundlikrao Deore & Others v/s The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Coo-peration & Marketing Dept. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- N V MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057480

Company & Directors' Information:- A M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1982PTC035266

Company & Directors' Information:- N T MARKETING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1987PTC042708

Company & Directors' Information:- M K MARKETING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1994PTC062726

Company & Directors' Information:- B P MARKETING LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51909DL1989PLC035247

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2003PTC096148

Company & Directors' Information:- M U S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109CH1999PTC023223

Company & Directors' Information:- R A B MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038060

Company & Directors' Information:- I. R. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51396WB1989PTC047169

Company & Directors' Information:- S P A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51497KA1996PTC020090

Company & Directors' Information:- B H MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC051539

Company & Directors' Information:- D D MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032775

Company & Directors' Information:- D S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB2008PTC126302

Company & Directors' Information:- P. B. MARKETING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400AS2010PTC009884

Company & Directors' Information:- P. V. T( MARKETING) PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51909WB1987PTC043159

Company & Directors' Information:- M. C. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909OR2006PTC009057

Company & Directors' Information:- V L MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109MH2011PTC217172

Company & Directors' Information:- L R MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC017535

Company & Directors' Information:- P L MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51395OR1999PTC005717

Company & Directors' Information:- K S MARKETING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U25199WB1994PTC061970

Company & Directors' Information:- I E MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045010

Company & Directors' Information:- D N MARKETING PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060460

Company & Directors' Information:- K G MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1999PTC123253

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1981PTC012710

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2005PTC154436

Company & Directors' Information:- J V MARKETING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51491WB1987PTC041819

Company & Directors' Information:- N B MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035474

Company & Directors' Information:- K R MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC046764

Company & Directors' Information:- K O MARKETING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109132

Company & Directors' Information:- D P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203WB2005PTC103219

Company & Directors' Information:- V D MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51503DL1996PTC083197

Company & Directors' Information:- P M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2002PTC134725

Company & Directors' Information:- C & I MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74996DL2007PTC159713

Company & Directors' Information:- V G MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC062848

Company & Directors' Information:- A P M MARKETING (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52520AP1988PTC008470

Company & Directors' Information:- K M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH2000PTC126454

Company & Directors' Information:- M D MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC092977

Company & Directors' Information:- R J M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2009PTC195950

Company & Directors' Information:- H V MARKETING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51219WB1995PTC067385

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. MARKETING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2007PLC171349

Company & Directors' Information:- J A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900CH2010PTC032123

Company & Directors' Information:- M V MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL1992PTC051334

Company & Directors' Information:- B R MARKETING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039041

Company & Directors' Information:- G L M (INDIA) MARKETING LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909AS2010PLC009691

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC033719

Company & Directors' Information:- S R MARKETING PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1993PTC013067

Company & Directors' Information:- N S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PTC080739

Company & Directors' Information:- S S MARKETING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00284BR1987PTC002572

Company & Directors' Information:- D C MARKETING PVT. LTD. [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060461

Company & Directors' Information:- A G M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15531WB1998PTC086474

Company & Directors' Information:- S I B MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52190DL2009PTC192589

Company & Directors' Information:- MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1988PTC002921

Company & Directors' Information:- G S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51211DL1998PTC092801

Company & Directors' Information:- R. T. C. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100WB2010PTC153386

Company & Directors' Information:- A K MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122DL2014PTC273933

Company & Directors' Information:- M R MARKETING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52322CT1990PTC005743

Company & Directors' Information:- K L MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2005PTC153613

Company & Directors' Information:- H P P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2010PTC145672

Company & Directors' Information:- N R MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52190PB1988PTC008435

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1943PLC000306

Company & Directors' Information:- D A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC123804

Company & Directors' Information:- G L MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC138765

Company & Directors' Information:- I L MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC126789

Company & Directors' Information:- R & D E-MARKETING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2009FTC195442

Company & Directors' Information:- B J MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21020MH1999PTC122939

Company & Directors' Information:- S K L S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC139429

Company & Directors' Information:- F E MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403UP2011PTC043378

Company & Directors' Information:- A S S MARKETING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990TZ2012PTC018310

Company & Directors' Information:- R M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2009PTC070928

Company & Directors' Information:- N. D. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52190WB2010PTC156154

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MARKETING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC170575

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND K MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL2002PTC117692

Company & Directors' Information:- B M I MARKETING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL2008PTC172658

Company & Directors' Information:- S A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1995PTC070950

Company & Directors' Information:- K P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21000MH1999PTC122938

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S INDIA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TZ2007PTC013867

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909JK2007PTC002784

Company & Directors' Information:- A V MARKETING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL1981PTC011342

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND H MARKETING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1998PTC094914

Company & Directors' Information:- M D A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109AS2005PTC007944

Company & Directors' Information:- S H MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PB2011PTC034844

Company & Directors' Information:- T L S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2010PTC198282

Company & Directors' Information:- S I P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2010PTC140613

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC088053

Company & Directors' Information:- P J MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311MH2001PTC132054

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z MARKETING PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1993PTC058137

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND H MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999CT2010PTC021955

Company & Directors' Information:- M P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC044263

Company & Directors' Information:- A B MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311CH1991PTC011568

Company & Directors' Information:- U-V MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51219TN1999PTC042820

Company & Directors' Information:- R & L MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PB2012PTC035826

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999RJ2016PTC055238

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130MH1999PTC122326

Company & Directors' Information:- M N MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109MH2010PTC205052

Company & Directors' Information:- C R MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900MH2012PTC230670

Company & Directors' Information:- F K MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2005PTC158489

Company & Directors' Information:- K V N MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52390TG2012PTC084080

Company & Directors' Information:- S L C MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2010PTC040075

Company & Directors' Information:- G. & C. MARKETING PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U22190WB1991PTC052768

Company & Directors' Information:- M H V MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1995PTC068367

Company & Directors' Information:- G M MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC033512

Company & Directors' Information:- M D N MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51397DL2008PTC183463

Company & Directors' Information:- M C I MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC094846

Company & Directors' Information:- P A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC113236

Company & Directors' Information:- A K V MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2002PTC115956

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND N MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC124640

Company & Directors' Information:- F S I MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC138015

Company & Directors' Information:- H P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC142661

Company & Directors' Information:- C TO C MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2009PTC193733

Company & Directors' Information:- A M A MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL2009PTC194108

Company & Directors' Information:- C. P. MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300DL2011PTC218792

Company & Directors' Information:- S V R MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392DL2002PTC115043

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52590DL2010PTC210284

Company & Directors' Information:- S N G MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900HR2011PTC042607

Company & Directors' Information:- P 3 MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52322KA2009PTC051199

Company & Directors' Information:- V C MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51100GJ2005PTC046994

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2012PTC068872

Company & Directors' Information:- A B S MARKETING PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC053474

Company & Directors' Information:- P U MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2003PTC119296

Company & Directors' Information:- P A MARKETING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999GJ1996PLC031187

Company & Directors' Information:- R K MARKETING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52190PB1984PTC005752

Company & Directors' Information:- A S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1998PTC087438

Company & Directors' Information:- A R MARKETING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1980PTC022478

Company & Directors' Information:- N & N MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109TN1998PTC041600

Company & Directors' Information:- J S MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1998PTC117036

Company & Directors' Information:- W C MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909HR2002PTC034835

Company & Directors' Information:- E C P MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52599KL2006PTC019761

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJENDRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17219TZ1948PTC000161

Company & Directors' Information:- J K L MARKETING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51101TN1981PTC008730

    Writ Petition (St) No. 29743 of 2018

    Decided On, 14 January 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.J. JAMADAR

    For the Petitioners: Atul Damle, Senior Advocate, a/w H. Avinash, Fatangare, I/b Vishakha V. Pandit, Advocates. For the Respondent: R1 to R3, R.A. Salunkhe, AGP, R5, Vijay Patil a/w Amit Sale, R6, Murlidhar L. Patil, Advocates.



Judgment Text

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

3. This petition assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the order of supersession of the Umrane Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Umrane, Taluka Deole District Nashik (hereinafter referred to as 'the market committee', for short) passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik, Respondent no.2, under the provision of Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short).

4. The background facts which led to this petition can be stated, in brief, as under:

a) Umrane Agricultural Produce Market Committee came to be established on 28th June, 2012. The Petitioners herein were elected as the members of the Managing Committee of the Market Committee on 14th March, 2016. On account of certain developments affecting liquidity in market, certain issues arose. While the Petitioners were addressing those issues, the agriculturalists, who had sold the agricultural produce to the traders in the market committee, made a grievance that the price of their agricultural produce has not been paid within the stipulated time.

b) Respondent no.2, District Deputy Registrar issued directions to the market committee under Section 40 of the Act, inter alia, directing the market committee to ensure immediate and scrupulous compliance of Rule 20 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules', for short) and the Rule 24 of the Market Committee Model byelaws. The Petitioners apprised Respondent no.2 about the action taken to ensure payment of the price of agricultural produce to the agriculturalists, within the stipulated period, by communication dated 4th December, 2017.

c) Though the Petitioners were making all the efforts to streamline the functioning of the market committee, Respondent no.2, without conducting an enquiry, as envisaged under Section 40 of the Act, called upon the Petitioners and the other members of the managing committee to show cause as to why, inter alia, the market committee may not be superseded under Section 45(1) of the Act and an Administrator be not appointed. The Petitioners gave reply to the show cause notice on 23rd April, 2018 pointing out the action initiated by the Petitioners and the unjustifiability of the proposed action. Yet, Respondent no.2, by order dated 13th July, 2018 passed an order under Section 45(1) of the Act and thereby superseded market committee and appointed Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nandgaon, as the Administrator.

d) Being aggrieved by the said order the Petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.7869 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 24th July, 2018, quashed and set aside the said order dated 13th July, 2018 and remitted back the matter for consideration to Respondent no.2, for the reason that the officer who had extended opportunity of hearing had not passed the order impugned therein. Respondent no.2 was thus directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and all the parties concerned, and pass order afresh.

e) The Petitioners appeared before Respondent no.2 and submitted additional reply and thereby brought to the notice of Respondent no.2 the subsequent developments. After hearing the parties and consulting the Maharashtra State Agricultural Marketing Board, Respondent no.6 passed an order on 9th October, 2018 and again superseded the market committee under Section 45(1) of the Act and appointed Mr. Sanjay Gite, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Deola, District Nashik, as the Administrator to administer the affairs of the market committee. The Petitioners have thus invoked the Writ of Jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The substance of the petition is that, firstly, the impugned order has been passed for extraneous consideration. Secondly, despite substantial compliance of the directions issued by Respondent no.2 under Section 40 of the Act, Respondent no.2 has superseded a democratically elected managing committee under political pressure. Thirdly, the directions issued by Respondent no.2 under Section 40 of the Act, were in breach of the Rules, 1967 as those directions ought to have been preceded by an enquiry contemplated by Rule 117 of the Rules, 1967. Fourthly, the prime factor which weighed with the Respondent no.2 i.e. failure to recover the market committee fee and supervision fee to the tune of Rs.3,66,59,373/-, attributed to the Petitioners, was not the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 23rd April, 2018 and thus could not have formed the basis of the impugned order. Lastly, there was no effective consultation with the State Agricultural Marketing Board, Respondent no.6, and thus the entire exercise is vitiated.

6. Respondent no.2 has contested the petition by filing reply and sought to justify the impugned order. Respondent no.5 Prashant Deore, who claimed to be the minority director in the erstwhile managing committee, also filed an Affidavit and supported the impugned order.

7. We have heard Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Salunkhe, the learned AGP for Respondent nos.1 to 3, Mr. Vijay Patil, the learned Counsel for Respondent no.5 and Mr. Murlidhar Patil, the learned Counsel for Respondent no.6.

8. Mr. Damle, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners strenuously urged that a democratically elected Managing Committee could not have been superseded in a high handed manner despite there being satisfactory explanation for the delay in payment of the price of the agricultural produce to the agriculturists by the traders and in the recovery of the market fee and supervision fee from the traders by the market committee. The earnest action taken by the Petitioners to remedy the situation has not been dispassionately considered by Respondent no.2 and the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration and consultation, urged learned Senior Counsel. The directions issued by Respondent no.2 under Section 40 of the Act were assailed for noncompliance of the provision of Rule 117, which envisages an enquiry.

9. Before adverting to deal with this submissions in the context of the default attributed to the Petitioners, it is necessary to note the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules, 1967, which prescribe the time for payment to the agriculturists, who sell their agricultural produce in the market committee. Sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 20 are relevant and, thus, extracted below:

'20. Payment in respect of agricultural produce sold to be made immediately after weighment or sale thereof -

(1) (a) Immediately after any declared agricultural produce (not being poultry, cattle, sheep or goats) is weighed or measured the purchaser shall settle the account and pay the seller or his commission agent as the case may be for the sale of the produce so weighed, on the same day.

[(b) The Commission agent shall pay the seller the sale proceeds of the agricultural produce sold from his own account on the same day of its sale for the produce sold on the same day after deducting therefrom his commission and market charges in accordance with the byelaws made in that behalf.

(2) ….....

(3) For the purpose of ascertaining that payment for the declared agricultural produce sold at any place in the market area are made to the seller as required by this rule, the Market Committee shall through its Secretary or any officer specially empowered by it in this behalf, arrange for the periodical inspection of the books of accounts of traders and commission agents operating in the market area [or shall make enquiry, as the case may be, whereas as a result of such inspection or enquiry, it is found that the payment has not been made within the time limit as mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Market Committee shall be competent to recover the amount from the deposit kept by the purchaser or commission agent with the Market Committee and pay the same to the seller or direct the Bank which has given guarantee on behalf of such purchaser or commission agent to pay the amount to the seller.]

10. It is evident that in order to ensure prompt payment to the agriculturists, sub-rule (1) warrants the payment of the price of the agricultural produce on the same day on which the agricultural produce is weighed or measured. A corresponding duty is cast upon the market committee to ensure the enforcement of aforesaid rule by conducting periodical inspection or making an enquiry. Sub-rule (3) further authorises the market committee to recover the unpaid price of the agricultural produce from the purchaser or commission agent out of the deposit with the market committee or by encashing the bank guarantee.

11. In this context, if the directions under Section 40(e) of the Act dated 30th November, 2017, are perused, it becomes abundantly clear that the grievance, i.e., the agriculturalists who had sold their agricultural produce to the traders in the market committee were not paid the price of the produce, was personally verified and found to be true by the Deputy Registrar, Respondent no.2, on 30th November, 2017, and, thereafter, the said directives were issued. From the perusal of the record, we have found that the Petitioners have not disputed the fact that about 135 agriculturists were not paid and the dues were to the tune of Rs.1,28,00,000/- as of 17th April, 2018.

12. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the submission on behalf of the Petitioners that Rule 117 of the Rules mandates an enquiry before directives are issued under Section 40 of the Act appears to be not supported by the text of Section 40 and Rule 117:

'Section 40. - Inspection, inquiry, submission of statements etc.The Director or any other authorised by him by general or special order in this behalf, may -

(a) inspect or cause to be inspected the accounts and offices of a Market Committee;

(b) hold inquiry into the affairs of a Market Committee;

(c) …..

(d) …..

(e) direct that anything which is about to be done or is being done should not be done, pending consideration of the reply and anything which should be done but is not being done within such time as he may direct.'

117. Manner of enquiry and inspection. - (1) An order, authorising inquiry or inspection under section 40 shall, among other things, contain the following :

(a) the name of the person authorised to conduct the enquiry or inspection;

(b) the name of the Market Committee whose affairs are to be enquired into or whose accounts and records are to be inspected;

(c) the specific point or points on which enquiry or inspection is to be made, the period within which the enquiry or inspection is to be completed and report submitted to the Director;

(d) any other matter relating to the enquiry or inspection.

13. If the aforesaid Rule 117(1) is read in juxtaposition with Section 40 of the Act, 1963, it becomes abundantly clear that before issuing a direction under Section 40(e) of the Act to the market committee to do an act within the stipulated time, no prior enquiry is warranted. The provisions of Rule 20 extracted above cast an obligation upon the market committee to ensure that the agriculturists are paid for the agricultural produce sold by them on the very day of the sale. Since, indisputedly, more than 100 agriculturists were not paid and an amount of Rs.1,28,00,000/- was outstanding from the traders, the Respondent no.2 was justified in issuing the directions under Section 40 of the Act, which constituted the basis of the show cause notice dated 23rd April, 2018. Thus the challenge to the impugned order on the basis of the breach of Rule 117 is unsustainable.

14. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners next urged that there was no element of 'persistent default' in the performance of the duties by the market committee. It is the persistent default only, which, according to the learned Senior Counsel, furnishes sustainable justification for the extreme action of supersession of the market committee under Section 45(1) of the Act. In the case at hand, since the Petitioners had made efforts to recover the amount which was due to the agriculturists, the factum of dues to the agriculturists could not have been construed as, 'persistent default'.

15. Since the challenge on this score and that of ineffective consultation with State Marketing Board are based on the text of Section 45(1) of the Act, 1963, it may be advantageous to extract the same, which reads as under:

'45. Suppression of Market Committee etc. :

(1) If, in the opinion of the State Government, a Market Committee or any member thereof, is not competent to perform or persistently makes default in performing the duties imposed on it or him by or under this Act or abuses its or his powers or wilfully disregards any instructions issued by the State Government or any officer duly authorised by it in this behalf arising out of audit of accounts of the Market Committee or inspection of the office and work thereof, the State Government may, after giving the Committee or member, as the case may be, an opportunity of rendering an explanation, [by an order in writing, with reasons therefor], supersede such Market Committee, or remove the member, as the case may be; and where a member is removed, the State Government shall appoint any person as a member of such Committee in his place for the remainder of his term of office.

[Provided that, no Market Committee shall be superseded without the [State Marketing Board] referred to in section 44 being previously consulted.]

16. From the phraseology of Subsection 1 of Section 45 it becomes explicitly clear that there are more than one grounds on which a market committee can be superseded; namely,

the market committee or any of its member:

(i) is found not competent to perform or

(ii) makes persistent default in performing the duties under Act or

(iii) abuses its or his powers or

(iv) wilfully disregards any instruction issued by the competent authority.

Evidently persistent default in performing the duties is one of the ground.

17. The gravity of the default on the part of the market committee is required to be appreciated in the backdrop of the duties imposed upon the market committee under the Act, 1963 and Rules thereunder. Chapter IV of the Act, 1963 subsumes the provisions regarding the powers and duties of the market committee. Section 29(1) declares that it shall be the duty of the market committee to implement the provisions of the Act, the Rules and byelaws made thereunder. Clause (xvii) of subsection (2) of Section 29 empowers the market committee to levy, take, recover and receive charges, fees, rates and other sum or money to which the market committee is entitled. Chapter IVA contains provisions regarding cost of supervision. Section 34B of the Act imposes a duty upon a market committee to collect the cost of supervision. Section 34C provides that in the event of default by the market committee, it shall be recovered together with penalty from the market committee as an arrear of land revenue under Section 57 of the Act.

18. We have already extracted Rule 20 of Rule 1967 which imposes a wholesome obligation upon the purchaser to pay the price of the agricultural produce on the same day. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 20, as observed, casts a corresponding obligation upon the market committee to ensure the payment of the price to the seller.

19. From the perusal of the material on record it is rather indisputable that the grievances of nonpayment of the price of the agricultural produce sold by the agriculturists, in the market committee, were received by the State Government in the month of October-2017. The direction under Section 40(e) came to be issued on 30th November, 2017. The show cause notice dated 23rd April, 2018 contains a specific charge that as of 17th April, 2018, the day the review of the pending dues of the agriculturists was taken, it was noticed that eight of the traders had defaulted in payment of the price of the agricultural produce of about 135 agriculturists and the total outstanding amount was Rs.1,28,00,000/-. In the face of these hard casts, it would be difficult to accede to the submission on behalf of the Petitioners that it was not a case of persistent default. Since Rule 20 of the Rules mandates that the price of the agricultural produce shall be paid to the agriculturists on the very day of the transaction, the failure of the market committee to take action to ensure the payment of unpaid price to the agriculturists and adopt the measures as authorised by sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, for such a long period i.e. 30th November, 2017 to 17th April, 2018, if considered on the touchstone of norm of payment on the very day of the sale, not only indicates the persistent default but also reflects upon the competency of the managing committee to discharge its functions and perform the duties imposed upon it under the Act.

20. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners then urged that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the principal factor which weighed with Respondent no.2 was the failure of the market committee to recover a sum of Rs.3,66,59,373/- towards the market fee and supervision fee and yet the notice dated 23rd April, 2018 was conspicuously silent about the same.

21. We have perused the notice date 23rd April, 2018. It is true that the said notice, in terms, doesn't refer to the said default in recovery of the market fee and supervision fee to the tune of Rs.3,66,59,373/-.

22. Mr. Vijay Patil, the learned Counsel for Respondent no.5, however, pointed out that there are assertions in the said notice of failure on the part of the market committee to perform the said duties also. However, the amount which was due towards the market fee and supervision fee was not quantified. The learned Counsel for Respondent no.5 would urge that the Petitioners did get an opportunity to rebut the said charge and did respond to it in the additional reply, which came to be filed post the remittance of the matter by the order of this Court dated 24th July, 2018. Inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph 10 of the said additional reply it was pointed out that the said fact of dues towards the market fee and supervision fee from the traders has not been disputed.

23. We find substance in the submission on behalf of Respondent no.5. In paragraph 10 of the said reply, the Petitioners have contended that the licences of 59 traders who owed a sum of Rs.3,66,59,373/- were renewed for the year 20182019. Out of those 59 traders, a sum of Rs.3,11,06,937/- was recovered from 49 traders as of 13th July, 2018. Whereas fees was yet to be recovered from 10 traders.

24. What excaberates the situation and accentuates the default is the fact that despite being served with a directive under Section 40 of the Act and the market committee being put on notice, the licences of 59 traders were renewed for the year 2018-2019 though they were in default of market fee and supervision fee to the tune of Rs.3,66,00,000/-. The Act, 1963 and the Rules thereunder contain adequate provisions and empower the market committee to refuse to renew the licence of those in default. The least that was expected was that the renewal of the licences of those 59 traders who were in default was withheld. The Act and Rules empower the market committee to even suspend and cancel the licence in the event of default.

25. On a careful perusal of the material on record, we have found that despite the direction under Section 40(e) of the Act dated 30th November, 2017, the market committee didn't mend its actions and make good the defaults. Though a desperate effort was made to show that subsequent to the directives and the show cause notice dated 23rd April, 2018, certain actions were initiated, yet we find that the market committee failed in its duty to supervise, and committed default in performance of duties imposed upon it under the Act. When we questioned the Petitioners as to whether any action was taken by the market committee to recover the dues from the traders the price of the agricultural produce, which remained unpaid, prior to the directions dated 30th November, 2017, the Petitioners were unable to show any document in that regard.

26. We are, therefore, of the considered view that even if the said ground of default in recovery of the market fee and supervision fee is eschewed from consideration, on the count that it was not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice, yet on the other grounds, the impugned order can be sustained. It is trite that if the impugned order can be sustained on one of the grounds, the fact that the other grounds which weighed with the decision making authority, were not found to be duly proved, doesn't detract materially from the validity of such order.

27. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Zora Singh vs. J. M. Tandon and others (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1537), wherein the aforesaid proposition was expounded, in the following words:

'The High Court was right in holding that even if there were, amongst the reasons given by the Commissioner, some which were extraneous, if the rest were relevant and could be considered sufficient, the Commissioner's conclusions would not be vitiated. The principle that if some of the reasons relied on by a Tribunal for its conclusion turn out to be extraneous or otherwise unsustainable, its decision would be vitiated, applies to cases in which the conclusion is arrived at not on assessment of objective facts or evidence, but on subjective satisfaction. The reason is that whereas in cases where the decision is based on subjective satisfaction if some of the reasons turn out to be irrelevant or invalid, it would be impossible for a superior Court to find out which of the reasons, relevant or irrelevant, valid or invalid, had brought about such satisfaction. But in a case where the conclusion is based on objective facts and evidence, such a difficulty would not arise. If it is found that there was legal evidence before the Tribunal, even if some of it was irrelevant, a superior Court would not interfere if the finding can be sustained on the rest of the evidence.'

28. It was lastly urged on behalf of the Petitioners that there was no effective consultation with the State Marking Board, as envisaged by the Proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act (extracted above). The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would urge that the impugned order reveals that Respondent no.2 has merely reproduced the opinion of the State Marketing Board, and the said opinion does not justify an inference of effective consultation. To butress this submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners placed a strong reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abhishek Shankarrao Thakare and others vs. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal (2015(2) AIR Bom R 794).

29. In the case of Abhishek Thakare (supra), this Court, had quashed and set aside the order passed by the State Government under Section 41(1) of the Act of supersession of APMC, Ghatanji, on the ground that there was no effective consultation as mandated by the Proviso to Subsection (1). From the perusal of the observations of this Court in the said judgment, especially paragraphs 19 and 21 thereto, it becomes explicitly clear that this Court had found that the explanation submitted by the Petitioners therein to the show cause notice was not at all considered by the State Marketing Board and the State Marking Board had not conveyed any positive opinion and had merely reproduced the points of objections in the show cause notice and the replies submitted thereto by the group of Directors, who represented the opposite group of the Petitioners, and thereafter opined that action in accordance with law may be taken.

30. We are of the view that the aforesaid facts in the case of Abhishek Thakare (supra) were peculiar. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, in our view, cannot govern the facts of the case at hand with equal force.

31. Nonetheless, since, the Proviso to Section 45(1) contains an interdict that no market committee shall be superseded without the State Marketing Board being previously consulted, we considered it appropriate to briefly deal with this challenge. If the requirement of 'consultation', envisaged by Proviso to Section 45(1) is considered in the light of the plenary power of supersession of a democratically elected market committee, then the significance of consultation with the State Marketing Board becomes clear. Evidently, the State Marketing, is a broad based entity comprising the representatives of the Government, officers of the Government and the representatives of the marketing committees. The State Marketing Board is expected to take an objective view of the matter. The consultation with the Board is envisaged as a safeguard against arbitrary and unjustified action. Thus, consultation with the State Marketing Board is not an empty formality.

32. The requirement of 'consultation' and the propositions which emerge when such consultation is provided in the statutory provisions have been expounded in various judicial pronouncements. A profitable reference can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Administration Services (S.C.C.) Association U.P. and others vs. Union of India and others (1993 (1) SCC 30), wherein a three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court, after a survey of the previous pronouncements, enunciated the following principles as regards the requirement of consultation, in paragraph 26:

'26. The result of the above discussion leads to the following conclusions:

(1) Consultations is a process which requires meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the material facts and points involved to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution. There should be meeting of minds between the proposer and the persons to be consulted on the subject of consultation. There must be definite facts which constitute the foundation and source for final decision. The object of the consultation is to render consultation meaningful to serve the intended purpose. Prior consultation in that behalf is mandatory.

(2) When the offending action affects fundamental rights or to effectuate builtin insulation, as fair procedure, consultation is mandatory and non-consultation renders the action ultra vires or invalid or void.

(3) When the opinion or advice binds the proposer, consultation is mandatory and its infraction renders the action or order illegal.

(4) When the opinion or advice or view does not bind the person or authority, any action or decision taken contrary to the advice is not illegal, nor becomes void.

(5) When the object of the consultation is only to apprise of the proposed action and when the opinion or advice is not binding on the authorities or person and is not bound to be accepted, the prior consultation is only directory. The authority proposing to take action should make known the general scheme or outlines of the actions proposed to taken be put to notice of the authority or the persons to be consulted; have the views or objections, take them into consideration, and thereafter, the authority or person would be entitled or has/have authority to pass appropriate orders or take decision thereon. In such circumstances it amounts to an action 'after consultation'.

(6) No hard and fast rule could be laid, no useful purpose would be served by formulating words or definitions nor would it be appropriate to lay down the manner in which consultation must take place. It is for the Court to determine in each case in the light of its facts and circumstances whether the action is 'after consultation'; 'was in fact consulted' or was it a 'sufficient consultation'.

33. The aforesaid pronouncement was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Sanjay Nagayach and others (2013) 7 SCC 25), wherein, with specific reference to the supersession of the Board of Directors of a Society, under the MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Supreme Court added one more proposition to the above propositions, namely, 'when the outcome of the proposed action is to oust a democratically elected body and the expression used is, ''shall not be passed without previous consultation', it is to be construed as mandatory.' Paragraph 24 of the said judgment read as under:

'Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Assn., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 730 has laid down six propositions while examining the meaning of the expression 'consultation'. One more proposition is added: that when the outcome of the proposed action is to oust a democratically elected body and the expression used is 'shall not be passed without previous consultation', it is to be construed as mandatory.'

34. A useful reference can also be made to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Appasaheb Sheshrao Chavan and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2000(1) Bom. C.R. 657), wherein, in the context of consultation envisaged by the Act, 1963, the following propositions were expounded:

'25. This Court in the case of Agricultural Produce Ma

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rket Committee, Dharni, cited (supra), held that mere sending of the copy of the show cause notice without anything more cannot amount to consultation within the meaning of the statutory provision. No opinion could be given only on the basis of show cause notice issued. It also held that there is a corresponding duty also on the body whose consultation is mandatory to give its opinion. The corresponding duty to give opinion is also to be performed truthfully, observing the spirit for which the provision is made. A federal body is considered to be a body of experts, which is able to take a detached view of the matter and, therefore, it has to be consulted. An authority making a proposal may have extraneous considerations influenced by the local conditions in its mind and a second opinion to be given by the federal body may weigh with the body making the proposal. Such an exchange of views is necessary between those bodies and executive functionaries. Therefore, the judicial pronouncements have laid down the following propositions regarding consultation – (1) Consultation, if so provided in the Statute, is mandatory before taking further steps of dissolution, supersession, diversion, amalgamation or bifurcation, etc.: (2) Consultation has to be effective and, therefore, all the material necessary for taking the steps must have been placed before the body to be consulted: (3) The body to be consulted has a corresponding duty to give its opinion. It cannot merely say that steps according to law may be taken. This is no opinion expressed by the body consulted.' 35. Reverting to the facts of the case, in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, it has to be seen whether all the material was placed before the State Marketing Board, whether the State Marketing Board considered all the relevant material and circumstances, and did the State Marketing Board give its opinion to Respondent no.2. 36. The impugned order reveals that the entire file (page nos.1 to 933) was submitted to the State Marking Board vide communication dated 24th August, 2018. Thereafter, the said proposal was placed before the State Marketing Board on 20th September, 2018. The opinion of the State Marketing Board, extracted in the impugned order, records that after considering the proposed action, in the light of the fresh opportunity of hearing provided to the Petitioners, the State Board was in agreement with the view that the market committee failed to perform its duties under the Act and thus gave concurrence to the proposed action. 37. In our view, the aforesaid consideration satisfies the requirement of consultation in all the three aspects, the consultee being apprised of the material and proposed action, the consultee having considered the matter and all the relevant material, and the consultee having recorded its categorical opinion on the matter on which it was consulted. Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submissions on behalf of the Petitioners that the impugned order is unsustainable as it suffers from the vice of ineffective consultation. 38. For the forging reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 39. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 Amrex Marketing Private Limited Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 The Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai & Others Versus P.C. Unnikrishnan, Rural Marketing & Recovery Officers, State Bank of India, Kollam & Others High Court of Kerala
11-08-2020 Atalbiharikumar Rajendra Mandal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-08-2020 C.G. State Marketing Federation Ltd. Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh & Another Versus T.J. Pandey & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
30-06-2020 Union Bank of India, Through Shri R. Rajendra Prasad, Branch Manager, Raichur Versus M/s. Tirumala Enterprises, Raichur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 S. Saravanan & Another Versus The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC) Dindigul District Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
02-06-2020 K. Saravanakumar Versus The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-05-2020 Khazan Singh Versus Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-05-2020 Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Undertaking Versus Rajendra Visanji Thakkar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar Chandrol Versus High Court of Madhya Pradesh
08-05-2020 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., CMDA Tower-II, Egmore Versus B. Ramkumar Adityan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-04-2020 Kerala State Beverages(Manufactoring & Marketing) Corporation Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 (I), Trivandrum High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-04-2020 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Versus M/s. In & Out Marketing High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Versus S.A. Alimenta Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Babu Rajendra Versus Basalingappa & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 State of M.P. & Others Versus Rajendra Kumar Sharma High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Satish Kumar Khandelwal V/S Rajendra Jain & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Senior Area Manager, West Bengal Versus Biswanath Adhikary & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 Sunita Palta & Others V/S M/s. Kit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 K. Ravi Versus The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-02-2020 M/s. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, R. Kirlosh Kumar Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Usha Jadhav & Another Versus Minister of Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Manaj Tollway Private Limited Versus Rajendra Rahane Superintending Engineer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, New Delhi Versus Rajendra Sudamrao Shinde & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 Nisar Ahmad Versus Rajendra Kumar Soni & Others High Court of Delhi
10-02-2020 Rajendra Versus Jugalkishor & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
10-02-2020 Executive Director, Sales And Marketing Renault India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Paramjeet Singh Brar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-02-2020 State Bank of India V/S Mittal Marketing Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 S. Prasanna Raj V/S The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division) Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 M/s. Bright Marketing Company, Tirupur Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 M.S. Marketing Services, Salem, Represented by its Proprietor M. Satya Versus The District Revenue Officer / General Manager The Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited Sithanoor, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Exotic Mile High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt Thro Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-01-2020 Rajendra Mishra Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Rajendra Saxena & Another Versus Sharda Ratnam & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Verma & Another Versus Dolly Rani Bag & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-01-2020 Harendra Ramchandra Pathak Versus Rajendra Ratan Mhatre High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-01-2020 Rajendra Kumar Khera & Others Versus U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Dr. N. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus Lingampally Srinivas & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-01-2020 Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, Marketing & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-12-2019 Rajendra Girdhar Patel Versus State Of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-12-2019 Rajendra Manohar Kowli & Another Versus Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
17-12-2019 K.M. Kumar Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Rajendra Diwan Versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Another Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Rajendra Singh Tomar & Others Versus State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary & Others Supreme Court of India
02-12-2019 Ajit Rajendra Bhagwat & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-12-2019 Sathi Khurana Versus Rajendra Singh Khurana High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-11-2019 Balasaheb Govind Basugade Versus Rajendra Shivaji Kumthekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-11-2019 Jaihind Sahakari Pani Purvatha Mandali Ltd. Shirdhon, Kolhapur Versus Rajendra Bandu Khot & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-11-2019 Rajendra Prasad Versus Sikkim University & Others High Court of Sikkim
25-10-2019 K. Rajendra Prasad & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-10-2019 Paramount Tea Marketing (SI) Private Limited, Coimbatore Versus Tea Board of India, Represented by its Executive Director, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Govt. of India, The Nilgiris High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-10-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited Central Marketing Organization Through Assistant General Manager (Marketing) Regional Office, Maharashtra Versus Lalit Agrawal & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-10-2019 Rajendra Agrawal Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rajendra Kumar & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
03-10-2019 The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Egmore, Chennai Versus The Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Maharashtra State Cotton Marketing Employees Co-Operative Spinning Mill Limited, Akola Versus Satish Narayanrao Gawande In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
25-09-2019 Kalpana Rajendra Kothari & Others Versus Santosh Arvind Jangam & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2019 Krushna Shivaji Patil Versus Parmanand Rajendra Patil & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-09-2019 S. Kamaraj Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Trichy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 M/s. Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kanthibai Rajendra Sheth Versus M/s. E.C. Bose & Company Private Limited, Kolkata & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 The Management, Kelamangalam Agricultural Producers, Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Krishnagiri Versus The Appellate authority/Joint Commissioner of Labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 Raju @ Rajendra Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-08-2019 Front Line Marketing Kachipukur(South) Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-08-2019 Rajendra Mahadeorao Chaudhary Versus Gajanan Keshavrao Bore In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2019 Ponvel Nadarajan & Others Versus State of Maharashtra Through Joint Secretary, Co-operation Marketing & Textile Department, Government of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-08-2019 M/S Fertico Marketing And Investment Pvt., Ltd., & Others Versus C.B.I., Anti Corruption Branch Lucknow & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-08-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal & Another Versus South City Project (Kolkata) Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-08-2019 Rajendra Pandit Versus Union of India, Through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-08-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
01-08-2019 Chopra Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Drishticon Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
30-07-2019 N. Rajendra Reddy Versus The Block Development Officer, Sholingur Panchayat Union, Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2019 Surabhi Chits Limited, Rep. by its Marketing Manager, Vishwanath Patil Versus T. Ganshyam High Court of Karnataka
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Gopinath In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2019 Rajendra Versus Vikas & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-07-2019 Rajendra Agarwal & Others Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-07-2019 Branch Manager,United Bank of India & Others Versus M/s. S.S. Marketing, Prop. Swapan Bhattacharya West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
22-07-2019 Rajendra Prasad Sharma Versus M/s. Hartin Harris Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-07-2019 Sujan Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee & Another Versus Rajendra Kumar Singh & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2019 Kusum Bansal Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Another Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
09-07-2019 Nagar Palika Parishad Versus M/s. Commercial Marketing Services High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
08-07-2019 C. Rajendra Prasad Versus The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-07-2019 Rajendra Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-07-2019 Rajendra Kumar through Nisar Mohammad Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
04-07-2019 Belhekarwadi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society Ltd. & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textile Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-07-2019 M/s. Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Supreme Court of India
01-07-2019 Rajendra Shivsing Chanda & Others Versus Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-06-2019 Sadashiv Pandurang Patil Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Department of Marketing & Textiles & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay