Case Note & Summary
The three writ petitions arose from a common set of facts involving borrowers who had obtained loans from Samta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Kopargaon, by mortgaging their property. The petitioners were M/s. Shrideep Associates through its proprietor, M/s S.V. Thombre & Associates through its proprietor, and Shripad Vinayak Thombre. They defaulted on repayment, leading the credit society to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 before the Assistant Registrar, Ahmednagar. Recovery certificates were issued against the petitioners and guarantors on different dates. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision applications under Section 154(2-A) of the MCS Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik, accompanied by applications for condonation of delay of 122 days. The Divisional Joint Registrar notified several office objections, including procedural defects such as non-compliance with Rule 106, absence of synopsis, lack of attestation, improper court fee stamps, missing copies of documents, and non-compliance with Section 154(2-A) requiring deposit of 50% of the recoverable dues amount. The objections were communicated to the petitioners, and two reminder letters dated 17.8.2020 and 17.11.2020 were issued. The petitioners did not cure the deficiencies. By the impugned order dated 9.2.2021, the Divisional Joint Registrar filed/closed the revision applications, recording that the revision petitioners were not interested in prosecuting them. The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court by way of writ petitions. The core legal issue was whether the refusal to entertain the revision applications was justified due to non-compliance with statutory requirements under Section 154(2-A) or whether the proceedings were terminated merely for non-removal of office objections. The petitioners relied on the decision in Dilawar Hakim Shah v. Special Recovery Officer, arguing that when a revision is accompanied by a condonation of delay application, the bar of Section 154(2-A) requiring 50% deposit does not apply while considering the condonation application. The respondent bank relied on Birindra Overseas Private Ltd. v. Shilpa Shares and Securities, contending that the 50% deposit is mandatory even for entertaining a revision. The Assistant Government Pleader argued that filing/closure did not terminate proceedings but could not demonstrate how they could be revived. The court observed that the revision applications were refused registration not on merits but because of failure to remove office objections. The court held that the stage for applying Dilawar Hakim Shah had not arisen because the revisions were never registered. The petitioners were required to first cure the notified objections, including the procedural defects and the deposit of 50% recoverable dues. The court found that the Divisional Joint Registrar's action of filing/closing the applications for want of prosecution was justified given the petitioners' lethargy in curing the lacunae despite two reminders. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Revision under Section 154(2-A) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Pre-deposit of 50% recoverable dues - Divisional Joint Registrar refused registration of revision applications for non-compliance with office objections including non-payment of 50% deposit under Section 154(2-A) and other procedural defects - Court held that until procedural objections are cured and revision is registered, the bar of Section 154(2-A) or the exception in Dilawar Hakim Shah does not come into play; the authority was justified in closing/filing the proceedings for want of prosecution - Held that revision applications were rightly refused registration and the stage for considering condonation of delay or Section 154(2-A) deposit had not arisen (Paras 5-9). B) Co-operative Law - Condonation of Delay - Section 154(2-A) Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Application of Dilawar Hakim Shah - Court distinguished Dilawar Hakim Shah where revision was dismissed on merits for non-deposit without considering condonation application; here registration was refused due to office objections, so ratio not applicable; petitioners must cure deficiencies first, and only then the application for condonation of delay can be considered - Held that the Divisional Joint Registrar's refusal to register was justified and the stage for applying Dilawar Hakim Shah had not arisen (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar was justified in refusing to register revision applications for non-removal of office objections without considering the applications for condonation of delay and the statutory requirement of depositing 50% of recoverable dues under Section 154(2-A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The High Court upheld the impugned orders dated 9.2.2021 by which the Divisional Joint Registrar refused registration of the revision applications due to non-removal of office objections. The court held that the stage for considering the condonation of delay application or the statutory pre-deposit under Section 154(2-A) had not arisen because the revisions were never registered. The petitioners were required first to cure the notified objections, including procedural defects and deposit of 50% recoverable dues. The court found that the Divisional Joint Registrar's action of filing/closing the applications for want of prosecution was justified, and the writ petitions were dismissed.
Law Points
- Revision under Section 154(2-A) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1961 requires deposit of 50% of recoverable dues
- office objections must be cured before revision can be registered
- filing/closure for non-prosecution does not terminate proceedings but refusal to register on defects is valid
- ratio of Dilawar Hakim Shah applies only when condonation application is considered
- not at registration stage.
