SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 28-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 347 
SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. J840of2013 etc.) 
MARCH 28, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Debt - Money lent by appella11/-creditors - To the sugar 
factory (respo11dents) - Certain amount of sugar stocks in the 
godown of the sugar factories agreed to be pledged i11 favour of 
the appe/la11ts - 011 failure 011 the part of the respondents to pay 
outstanding dues to sugarcane suppliers, order under Sugarcane 
(Control) Order, 1966 directing release of certain amount to be paid 
to sugarcane suppliers was passed - Co11seque11tly stock of sugar 
in the godowns of the respondents including the stock pledged i11 
favour of the appella11ts, attached - Objectio11 to attachme11t filed 
by the respondent-sugar factories a11d the appellants - Sugar stock 
further put to auction - Writ petitio11 by appellants pleading that 
they had right of precedence in the repayment of loan amount -
High Court disposed of the petitions holding that the appellants 
had first right over the amount of pledged sugar - Pursuant to 
High Court order when the appellants approached the authority 
concerned, the authority rejected their claim - Writ petitions by 
appellants against the rejection order - High Court dismissed the 
writ petitions holding that the appellants had alternative remedy to 
file suit uls.218 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - On appeal, 
held: The order of the High Court in the earlier round of litigation, 
having attained finality, genuineness in favour of the appe/lants-
creditors cannot be doubted - High Court erred in dismissing the 
writ petitions - The authorities concerned directed to disburse the 
amount giving precedence to appellants over the dues payable to 
the workers and sugarcane farmers - Sugarcane (Control) Order, 
1966. 
Aliowing the appeals, the Cnurt 
HELD:. 1. It is not "disputed that in the earlier round 
of litigation, appellants filed Writ Petitions. It is also not disputed 
that in said writ petitions the factum relating to pledge made in 
favour of appellants by rcsponilcnt No.5 was considered, and the 
347 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
348 
SIJPREME COIJRT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
/\ 
lligh Court accepted that the stock or sugar in question was 
pledged in favour or the appellants. llowever, the lligh Court 
observed that the order dated 28.5.2011, passed by the 
Commissioner or Sugar & Special Registrar, Co-operative 
Societies, Maharashtra, was not challenged, as such, no 
l3 
adjudication was m>lllC in respect or entitlement or the appellants 
,us against the claints oflvorkcrs' union or the sugarcane farntcrs. 
The. High Court disposed or the writ petitions direcling the 
Collector to consider the entitlement and priorily or the 
appellants, sugarcane farmers and the workers. The order 
dated 12.8.2011 was passed by the High Court in the earlier round 
C 
or litigation not only artcr hearing the respondents orsaid case 
but also the intenrcnors, lvho arc contesting respondents in .the 
present round or litigation, as such, it is not open for the 
contesting respondents now to challenge the genuineness or the 
pledge made in favour or the appellants, as the order in the earlier 
D 
E 
F 
G 
round has attained finality. Even in view or the record pertaining 
lo the trausactions or pledge by which respondent Nos. 5 and 6 
pledged the sugar stock in 11ucstion, in favour or the appellants, 
there is uo reason to doubt the transactions. Tims, the High 
Court has erred in law in dismissing the writ pctitious filed by 
the appclla1its. fl'ams 10, II and 13( (353-E-11; 354-A-B; 355-Gf 
Ce11tral Bank <!f1mlia 1: SiriKllflf'" SuKcirs & Chemicals 
ltd. """others 2007 (8 ) sen 898 : (2007) .8 sec 353 
- relied on . 
. 2. The authorities concerned arc directed to disburse the 
amount in the light of the observations made, regarding 
cutitlcmcnl of the appellants with precedence over the dues 
payable to workers and sugarcane farmers, under Sugarcane 
(Control) Order, 1966. However, ii is clarified that the amount· 
already distributed shall not be recovered from the workers and 
the sugarc:rne farmers .. (Para 14( (355-11; 356-A-Bf 
· 
Case Law Reference 
2001 (8) sen 898 
relied on. 
Para 7. 
CIVIL/\PPELL/\TE_JURISDICTION: Civil /\ppeal No. 1840 of 
2013 
From the.Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the 
II 
lligh Court ofJudicaturc of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8452of2011. 
SAHYADRI CO-OPERATIVE C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.