The legality of a recovery certificate issued under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). The petitioner, Smita P. Dalvi, challenged the Assistant Registrar's jurisdiction to issue the certificate, arguing that disputes related to parking charges should be resolved under Section 91 of the MCS Act, not through recovery proceedings.

1. Background of the Case:

• Core Issue: Legality of the recovery certificate issued for Rs. 98,620/- in favor of the respondent society.

2. Arguments by the Petitioner:

• Jurisdictional Challenge: The petitioner argued that the Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to issue a recovery certificate for parking-related charges, asserting that such disputes should be filed under Section 91 of the MCS Act.
• Parking Charges Dispute: The petitioner claimed to have occupied the parking space with the consent of another member, Ms. Anita Madan, who was out of the country. The society imposed penalty charges, leading to the issuance of the recovery certificate.
• Reliance on Bye-Law No. 174(B)(iv): The petitioner cited the Model Bye-Laws to support the contention that parking disputes should be resolved in a Co-operative Court, not through recovery proceedings.

3. Respondents' Stand:

• Maintainability: The respondents argued the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 154 of the MCS Act.
• Jurisdictional Argument: The respondents maintained that the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction under Section 154B-29, which allows recovery of certain sums due to housing societies, overriding Section 91.

4. Court's Analysis:

• Interpretation of Section 154B-29: The court analyzed the scope and effect of Section 154B-29, which allows the Registrar to issue recovery certificates for dues to housing societies, overriding Section 91 of the MCS Act.
• Effect of "Notwithstanding Clause": The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of "notwithstanding anything contained in" clauses, confirming that Section 154B-29 overrides Section 91.
• Different Spheres of Operation: The court noted that Bye-Law No. 174 and Section 154B-29 operate in different domains, with Section 154B-29 specifically dealing with the recovery of dues.

5. Conclusion:

• The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar to issue the recovery certificate under Section 154B-29, dismissing the petitioner's challenge. The petitioner was directed to seek remedy through the appropriate channels, including revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act.