Bombay High Court Disposes of Clubbed Writ Petitions Filed by Co-operative Society and Borrowers in Loan Recovery Dispute. Recovery Certificates under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Attachment Orders under Rule 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 Were Challenged in the Context of Consent Awards.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 71
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

These writ petitions arise from a dispute between a co-operative credit society, Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadeet (Chinchwad), and its borrowers, Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and two individuals. The lender sanctioned loans amounting to Rs.70 lakhs and Rs.80 lakhs at compound interest rates of 19% and 20% respectively, repayable by June 2002, and additional loans of Rs.30 lakhs each to individual borrowers in 1999–2000. Defaults led the lender to apply for recovery certificates under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Shirol. Despite multiple adjournments, the borrowers did not file their say, and on 14 October 2005, the Assistant Registrar issued recovery certificates. The borrowers successfully sought review, and after a fresh hearing, the Assistant Registrar passed detailed recovery certificates on 29 April 2006, quantifying dues with interest. Meanwhile, the borrowers had filed disputes under Section 91 of the Act before the Co-operative Court, Kolhapur, seeking settlement of accounts. On 16 November 2006, the parties filed consent terms and the Co-operative Court passed consent awards, recording that the borrowers admitted the debt and agreed to repay at 17% interest within a stipulated period, failing which the lender could recover as per the Section 101 certificates. Subsequently, each side alleged breach: the lender claimed borrowers failed to repay, while the borrowers contended the lender did not furnish account statements as agreed. On 13 May 2008, the Special Recovery Officer initiated attachment proceedings under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. The borrowers challenged this attachment by filing Revision Applications (Nos. 261 to 265 of 2008) before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur. During the pendency of those revisions, multiple writ petitions came to be filed by both sides before the High Court of Bombay. By consent, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The exact outcome and operative directions are not detailed in the available excerpt.

Issue of Consideration

WRIT PETITION NO. 435 OF 2013

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 149

Writ Petition No. 435 of 2013 along with connected matters (W.P. Nos. 438, 440, 2406, 2407, 2436, 2442 of 2013, 3024, 4722, 1548, 4965 of 2017)

2019-07-02

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr. Rajendra V. Pai, Mr. P. D. Dalvi, Mr. A. R. Pai, Ms. Neuty N. Thakkar, Ms. Apurva Bhat; Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar, Mr. Datta H. Pawar, Ms. Sonali Pawar, Ms. Apoorva Khandeparkar; Adv. R. P. Kadam, AGP

Shri Datta Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadeet (Chinchwad) (in some petitions), M/s Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others (in other petitions)

Tanwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Amar Rameshbhai Tanwani, Anil Rameshbhai Tanwani, State of Maharashtra, and others as per respective petitions

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging various orders passed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 in the context of loan recovery by a co-operative credit society.

Remedy Sought

Lender sought to uphold recovery certificates and attachment orders; borrowers sought to quash attachment, set aside recovery certificates, or enforce consent award obligations.

Filing Reason

Lender filed writs against orders setting aside or interfering with recovery certificates; borrowers filed writs against attachment orders and for enforcement of consent award terms.

Previous Decisions

Assistant Registrar issued recovery certificates under Section 101 on 29-04-2006; Co-operative Court passed consent awards on 16-11-2006; Special Recovery Officer attached properties under Rule 107 on 13-05-2008; borrowers filed revision applications before Divisional Joint Registrar (Nos. 261-265/2008).

Judgment Excerpts

By consent of parties, all the aforesaid writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. On 20th December, 2004, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Shirol issued notices to the borrowers in those application filed under section 101 of the MCS Act and posted the matter for hearing on 31st January, 2005.

Procedural History

Loans sanctioned on 30-06-1999 and 05-01-1999/09-05-2000; defaults committed; lender applied for recovery certificates on 18-11-2004 and 22-12-2003; notices issued on 20-12-2004; borrowers filed disputes under Section 91 of MCS Act on 25-01-2005 and 16-06-2005; after oral submission on 20-08-2005, Assistant Registrar issued recovery certificates on 14-10-2005; review allowed on 25-11-2005, re-hearing led to fresh recovery certificates on 29-04-2006; consent terms filed and Co-operative Court passed consent awards on 16-11-2006; borrowers alleged non-compliance, lender alleged default; Special Recovery Officer attached properties under Rule 107 on 13-05-2008; borrowers filed Revision Applications Nos. 261-265 of 2008 before Divisional Joint Registrar; during pendency, multiple writ petitions filed by both sides; all petitions heard together and disposed of by common order on 02-07-2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: 91, 101
  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961: 107
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Revision Petition in Maintenance Case Under Section 125 CrPC — Sets Aside Family Court Order Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements. The Court held that the Family Court failed to ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Tenant's Appeal in Maharashtra Tenancy Act Case — Right to Purchase Not Lost Due to Lack of Knowledge of Landlord's Death. The court held that the limitation period under Section 32-F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural...