Record further reveals that through letter No.
1841 of 2013 and order dated 12.8.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.
5 and 6 ran into losses and failed to pay the outstanding dues of the cane growers.
Respondent number 3 Collector, Kolhapur, was numberinated as authorized officer for disbursement of said amount.
The appellants also raised their objections to the attachment.
CMA 856/2010 11 dated 21.2.2011, on the record, discloses that Kolhapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. companymunicated No Objection to respondent number 5, Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., by enclosing No Objection Certificate in favour of respondent number 6 Tasgaonkar Sugar Mills Ltd. for raising working capital loan from other financial institutions.
4539 and 4533 of 2011 respectively before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay pleading that they have right of precedence in the repayment of loan amount.
All the above documents remove the clouds of doubt as to the transactions of pledge in question in favour of the appellants.
5 and 6 objected to the attachment of sugar stock pledged to them.
5 and 6 was agreed to be pledged in favour of appellant Sahyadri Co operative Credit Society Ltd., and sugar stock of 80,985 quintals stored in godown Nos.
Vide interim order dated 17.11.2011, the High Court passed companymon order in both the writ petitions declining interim stay prayed by the writ petitioners and observed that a sum of Rs.27,94,27,910/ deposited in the High Court shall companytinue to remain invested in fixed deposit and the objection relating to the maintainability shall be heard at the time of arguments on admission.
Consequently, respondent number 2, Commissioner of Sugar Special Registrar, Co operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune, passed an order under Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 directing release of Rs.36,22,66,591 with interest accrued to be paid to the members who had supplied their sugarcane post May 15, 2010.
7 I and 7 II along with other stock would be put to auction on 22.6.2011 at 3.30 p.m. in pursuance of the order dated 28.5.2011.
In said order the High Court took numbere of the fact that the total amount realized after auction of 2,17,984 bags quintals of sugar manufactured by respondent number 5 including the disputed pledged sugar in favour of the appellants , is Rs.52,95,36,483/ .
Admittedly, respondent number.
Accordingly, respondent number 4 visited site of respondent number 5 and attached the stock of godown number 6 and godown number.
1840 of 2013 shows that respondent number 5 Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. requested Kolhapur District Central Co operative Bank Ltd. for issuance of NOC in favour of the appellant societies specifying the godown numbers and the quantity of sugar in stock.
The High Court further directed that the amount receivable against the stock of sugar pledged to the appellants shall be deposited with the Registrar Judicial of the High Court whereafter the Registrar Judicial was to keep the amount in a nationalized bank in fixed deposit.
Notices were issued and the respondents objected to the maintainability of the two writ petitions.
The High Court finally disposed of both the writ petitions Nos.
A sum of Rs.21,65,00,000/ was deposited in the High Court, and regarding rest, it was stated before the High Court that the same would be deposited after receiving the same from the auction purchaser.
8452 of 2011 and 8453 of 2011, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner societies present appellants , observing that the alternative remedy of filing suit was available to them under Section 218 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for short the MLR Code .
Consequently, the appellants approached respondent number 3, but said authority rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the payment of Provident Fund amounting to Rs.4,66,40,511/ on account of dues to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner would be the first priority, and a sum of Rs.36,22,66,591/ plus interest shall be paid to the cane growers who supplied sugarcane to respondent number 5 Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. It is further directed by respondent number 3 that the balance amount, after auction of sugar stock, be paid to the workers of factory of respondent number 5.
Copy of resolution dated 6.3.2011, passed by Special General Body of Sahyadri Multi State Co operative Credit Society Ltd. Annexure A 6 to additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions directing the Collector to companysider the entitlement and priority of the appellants, sugarcane farmers and the workers.
Copy of letter No.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are Multi State Co operative Societies registered under Multi States Co operative Societies Act, 2002 and operate in the geographical territories of Maharashtra and Karnataka.
7 I and 7 II under clause 3 9 of the Sugarcane Control Order, and directed respondent number 5 number to dispose of the stock of sugar lying in the above godowns.
1840 of 2013 Kolhapur District Central Co operative Bank Ltd. gave companysent for pledge of sugar stock of godown Nos.
It is pointed out that in respect of loan disbursed on 31.3.2011 the agreement was registered later on 26.5.2011, and the document shows pledge of sugar was only promised.
1840 of 2013 shows that a decision was taken to raise loan of Rs.12,00,00,000/ against pledge of sugar.
4539 of 2011 Annexure P 5 to Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by this, appellant Navhind Co operative Credit Society Ltd., and appellant Sahyadri Co operative Credit Society Ltd. filed Writ Petition Nos.
In reply to the above argument, the appellants drew our attention again to the order dated 22.6.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.
Copy of letter No.
8452 of 2011 and 8453 of 2011 respectively before the High Court.
It is pleaded that respondent number 8 Daulat Sakhar Kamgar Sangh workers union also gave companysent for creation of pledge.
The appellants and respondent number.
Through letter dated 23.3.2011 Annexure A 10 respondent number 5 Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. informed the appellants giving companysent for raising working capital against pledge of goods.
Accts Fin/1732/2010 11 dated 25.3.2011 Annexure A 11 to additional affidavit filed in Civil Appeal No.
4533 of 2011 Annexure P 5 to Civil Appeal No.
The appellant societies are engaged in the business of accepting deposits from its members, and lending money to them.
Consequential resolution dated 8.3.2011 Annexure A 8 appears to have been passed by appellant Sahyadri Multi State Co operative Credit Society Ltd. in the meeting of the Board of Management Committee.
4533 and 4539 of 2011 holding that the appellants would have first right over the amount of pledged sugar, and respondent number 3 was directed to make distribution of the amount companylected in accordance with rules keeping in mind the rights of precedence of the parties.
CMA 868/2010 11 dated 29.3.2011 Annexure A 14 to additional affidavit filed in Civil Appeal No.
Said Bank had companysented to respondent No.
Respondent number 6 M s. Tasgaonkar Sugar Mills Ltd. is lessee of business of respondent number 5 Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. under the deed dated 15.10.2010, and, as such, respondent number 6 has taken over the business of respondent number 5.
5 and 6 entered into an agreement on 25.05.2011 and the same was duly registered.
As such, sugar stock of 35,000 quintals stored in godown number 6 of respondent number.
It appears that the order dated 12.8.2011 was passed by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation number only after hearing the respondents of said case but also the intervenors, who are companytesting respondents in the present round of litigation, as such, in our opinion, it is number open for the companytesting respondents number to challenge the genuineness of the pledge made in favour of the appellants, as the order in the earlier round has attained finality.
5 and 6 pledged the sugar stock in question in favour of the appellants and we find numberreason to doubt the transactions.
However, on 18.6.2011 a public numberice was issued in the newspapers, including Daily Sakal, wherein it was informed that godown number 6 and godown number.
Aggrieved by aforesaid order of the Collector, Kolhapur respondent number 3 , the appellants, namely, Sahyadri Co operative Credit Society Ltd. and Navhind Co operative Credit Society Ltd. filed Writ Petition Nos.
6 and 7 in favour of the appellants.
The High Court, vide its order dated 22.6.2011 on the day of public auction , directed that auction, as numberified, should be companyducted after fixing the set price.
Prafulla C. Pant.
Apart from this, we have examined the papers on record pertaining to the transactions of pledge by which respondent Nos.
Both the sums are credited into the account of Kolhapur District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., erstwhile creditor of respondent number 5.
J., These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 10.02.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.
7 I and 7 II was agreed to be pledged in favour of appellant Navhind Co operative Credit Society Ltd. In respect of said transactions of pledge, separate letters dated 31.03.2011 regarding companysent of respondent number 6 were issued in favour of the appellants.
Respondent number.
5 for creation of charge in favour of the appellants in the form of pledge.
On 11.7.2011, Sub Divisional Officer filed an affidavit stating that the entire stock of sugarcane was sold for a sum of Rs.52,95,36,483/ , out of which the amount realized against the pledged sugar was Rs.27,94,27,910/ .
In pursuance of said order, respondent number 3 directed respondent number 4 Tehsildar, Chandgad, District Kolhapur, Maharashtra, to recover the amount of Rs.36,22,66,591/ as arrears of land revenue under clause 3 9 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, from respondent number 5.
They approached the appellants for financial assistance.
Appellant Sahyadri Co operative Credit Society Ltd. sanctioned loan of Rs.7,00,00,000/ repayable within a period of six months to respondent number 5, and appellant Navhind Co operative Credit Society Ltd. sanctioned loan of Rs.12,20,00,000/ on similar terms to it.
