MAHARASHTRA STATE COOP.BANK LTD. vs KANNAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LD.&ORS. — SLP(C) No. 14772 - 14773/2010
Case under Section IX. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010150292010
Filing Date
07-May-2010
Registration No
SLP(C) No. 14772 - 14773/2010
Diary Number
15029/2010
Order Date
01-Jul-2013
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 04-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAHARASHTRA STATE COOP.BANK LTD.
Adv. RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.KANNAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LD.&ORS.
Adv. SUSHMA SURI ARTI SINGH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Jul-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Feb-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Nov-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Sep-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Aug-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Mar-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Dec-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Jul-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-May-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Apr-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Feb-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Feb-2011
ROPView PDF
-
11-Feb-2011
ROPView PDF
-
28-Jan-2011
ROPView PDF
-
28-Jan-2011
ROPView PDF
-
17-Jan-2011
ROPView PDF
-
17-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Nov-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Nov-2010
ROPView PDF
-
12-Nov-2010
ROPView PDF
-
05-Oct-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Jul-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jun-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-May-2010
Case filed
Registration No. SLP(C) No. 14772 - 14773/2010
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank's special leave petitions challenging the Bombay High Court's order upholding provident fund recovery against pledged sugar bags. The Court rejected the bank's arguments that: (1) a prior Supreme Court judgment was per incuriam; (2) worker provident fund dues should not take priority over secured bank debts; and (3) Essential Commodities Act provisions favored the bank. The Court affirmed that Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act creates a first charge on establishment assets for all employer dues, including interest and damages, taking priority over pledged property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts