Case Note & Summary
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from an interim order dated 8 September 2009 passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2957 of 2009. The original writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2 herein) had assailed a recovery certificate dated 21 February 2009 issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and subsequent demand notices. The recovery certificate was issued against respondent no. 1 following his default on an overdraft facility availed from appellant no. 1, a co-operative bank. The appellants had previously filed a dispute before the co-operative court but withdrew it to pursue proceedings under Section 101. Despite service, respondent no. 1 did not participate in the recovery proceedings, leading to the ex-parte certificate for Rs. 9,45,548. The Single Judge, while issuing rule in the writ petition, also granted interim relief staying the recovery notice and directing no coercive action. The appellants challenged this order in the present Letters Patent Appeal, contending that the writ petition was not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal or revision was available under Section 154(1) of the Act, and that the respondents had bypassed this remedy to evade the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 154(2A). The appellants placed reliance on Kausalya Sampt vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2004 (6) Bom.C.R. 651, which upheld the validity of Section 154(2A), and Arun Khanjire vs. Ichalkaranji Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 187, which explained the revisional powers under Section 154(1). They also referred to an order passed by the same Single Judge in another writ petition dismissing it on similar grounds. The matter was admitted and heard by a division bench. However, the provided judgment text concludes without recording the final decision of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 154(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 9
Letters Patent Appeal No. 209 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 2957 of 2009
S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare
Sachin Deshmukh, V.B. Ghatge
The Maharashtra Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, Latur, Market Yard Branch, and The Special Recovery and Sales Officer, The Maharashtra Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd., Latur
Ravindra s/o Prabhakar Kulkarni, Shailaja w/o Prabhakar Kulkarni, The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka Latur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against interlocutory order staying recovery proceedings
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought quashing of the interim order dated 8.9.2009 passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2957 of 2009, which stayed the recovery certificate and demand notices.
Filing Reason
Appellants contended that the writ petition should not have been entertained due to available alternate remedy under Section 154(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge passed interim order on 8.9.2009 granting stay; prior to that, recovery certificate was issued under Section 101 on 21.2.2009 after ex-parte proceedings.
Issues
Whether the writ petition filed by respondents against the recovery certificate under Section 101 is maintainable in light of the alternate statutory remedy of appeal/revision under Section 154(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the requirement of 50% deposit under Section 154(2A).
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition as an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 154(1) was available, and the respondents deliberately bypassed it to evade the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 154(2A). Reliance was placed on Kausalya Sampt vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Arun Khanjire vs. Ichalkaranji Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. The appellants also highlighted that the same Single Judge had earlier dismissed a similar petition in Jaiprakash vs. The Jalgaon District Medicine Dealers' Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. on grounds of alternate remedy.
Judgment Excerpts
Admit. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for final hearing.
the learned Single Judge ... granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners ... stayed implementation, operation and execution of the notice dated 25.4.2009, as well as directed that no coercive action be taken against the present respondent Nos.1 and 2, in pursuance of the recovery certificate dated 21.2.2009.
the learned Single Judge should not have entertained the said writ petition and should not have granted interim relief, therein.
alternate efficacious statutory remedy of appeal or revision was available to the petitioners ... under Section 154(1) of the Co-operative Act.
Procedural History
Respondent no.1 availed overdraft facility from appellant no.1 on 25.7.1997. After default and unsuccessful demands, appellants filed dispute before cooperative court but withdrew it to initiate proceedings under Section 101. Recovery certificate under Section 101 issued on 21.2.2009 for Rs.9,45,548/-. Final demand notice under Rule 107 issued on 24.4.2009, and another notice on 25.4.2009. Respondents 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.2957 of 2009 challenging the recovery certificate and notices. On 8.9.2009, Single Judge granted Rule and interim stay, directing no coercive action. Appellants filed LPA No.209 of 2009. LPA admitted and heard on 26.10.2010, judgment reserved and pronounced on 29.10.2010, but the provided text ends without the final decision.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 101, Section 154(1), Section 154(2A)
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules: Rule 107
