1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6472 OF 2006 The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Limited & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Trimbak Godaji Gaikwad & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.K.S.Patil with Mr.P.N.Joshi for the petitioners Mr.P.L.Bhujbal for the respondents CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006 DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006 DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2006 P.C.: 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai in an appeal against the order passed by the Co-operative Court granting injunction in favour of the respondents restraining the present petitioners from implementing the resolution passed in the Annual General Meeting held on 12.11.05 till final disposal of the dispute. Prima facie, both the courts below have found that the A.G.M. held on 12.11.05 was not legal and proper and hence, granted temporary 2 injunction as prayed for. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are certain subjects which were passed in the meeting held on the said date, which are formal in nature and hence, those resolutions need not be stated even if it is found that prima facie case is made out by the respondents which is accepted by the courts below. The said formal subjects are at Serial no.1, 5 and 6 on the agenda of the meeting published on 12.11.05 at Exhibit ’J’ on page 39 of the petition. All other subjects have a bearing on the merits of matter in regard to the legality of the meeting. 3. I have perused the order passed by the appellate court. It takes a possible view of the matter in prima facie concluding that the meeting is not legal and proper. Hence, no interference is called for. However, having regard to the fact that subject no. 1, 5 and 6 being formal, the injunction need not operate in regard to the resolutions passed touching subject no.1, 5 and 6 on the agenda. The orders passed by the courts 3 below stand modified only to the extent that the injunction will not apply in regard to the resolutions touching subject no. 1, 5 and 6 borne on the agenda of the meeting dt.12.11.05 Ex. J. With this modification and clarification, writ petition is dismissed. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court need to decide the main dispute uninfluenced by the observation made by the appellate court so also this court. It is thus, made clear that the Co-operative Court shall decide the dispute uninfluenced by the observation made while deciding the interim injunction application. Having regard to the question involved, I direct the Co-operative court to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 months from today. ( SHRI A.P.DESHPANDE, J ) ( SHRI A.P.DESHPANDE, J ) ( SHRI A.P.DESHPANDE, J )