LexSHRI ARUN B. KHANJIRE versus THE ICHALKARANJI URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1108 SHRI ARUN 8. KHANJIRE . -~ .. THE ·ICHALKARANJI URBAN CO-OP. SANK LTD. & ORS. , · . · (SLP (C) NO. 18563 of 2005) ' ' •. ' ~ - • • + • "' ;. DECEM~ER 3, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANOEY KAT JU, JJ.] · Maharashtra ·Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - ss. 154 and 101 - Default in repayment ·of loah ..... Recovery C procee.dings initiated by Respondent-Co-operative Sank against ths Petitioner - Recovery certificates issued by Asstt. ·Registrar, Co-operative Societies - High Court declined to interfere -Application by Petitioner before Divisional Joint Registrar for settihg aside recovery certificates allowed - o Propriety of ..:. Held: Not proper - s. 154(2A) . stipulated pre- deposit of 50%. recoverable dues as pre-condition to hear appeal- Petitioner made application in which all facts relating to appeal were set out and which served the purpose of appeal without compliance with s. 154(2A). E The Petitioner disputed his liability and that of his firm to make payments to Respondent-Co•operative Bank, after allegedly taking loans from it, and filed an application under s;91 of the Maharashtra ·Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Meanwhile, Respondent-Bank F initiated action for recovery against the Petitioner and his firm under s.101 of the Act. The Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies issued recovery certificates after accepting the claim of the Bank. The. Petitioner filed writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court declined G to grant relief. The Petitioner filed Misc. complaint . appl,ication before the Divisional Joint Registrar seeking reliefs similar to the reUefs sought for in the writ petitions. The. Divisional Joint Registrar set aside the recovery H certificates. Writ petition against the order of Divisional 1108 ARUN B. KHANJIRE v. ICHALKARANJI URBAN CO-OP. 1109 BANK l tb. & ORS, Joint Registrar was-allowed. Hence the present petition. A Dismissh1g the Petition, the Court .· HELD: 1. 1·n view of s.154 of the Maharashtra Co- op-erative Societies Act, 1960, and in particular Sub- section (2A) of s.154, no interference is called for wi.th the · 8 order of the High Court. [Para 16] [1115-C-D] 2.1. s.154(1) of the Act confers revisionary powers on the State Government and also the Registrar of Co- operative Societies under the Act. It also empowers the 'c State Government or the Registrar to satisfy themselves as to the legality or the propriety of any such decision or order and to modify, annul or reverse the same after giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of , being heard either suo motu or on an application. In the o instant case, although it was contended that the proceedings had been commenced suo-motu, one is unable to accept such submission sinc.e an application had been made by the petitioner to the officer concerned in which all the facts relating to the appeal had been set E out. Although, the same was not in the form of a formal Memorandum of Appeal it served the purpose of the appeal without compliance with the provisions of Sub- ' section (2A) which required deposit of 50% of the recoverable dues. In fact, the petitioner .resorted to an F innovative procedure in order to avoid the pre-condition of payment of 50% of recoverable dues as stipulated under Sub-section (2A) of s.154 ofthe Act [Para 16][1115- D-G] 2.2. The matter was not taken up suo-motu by the G Divisional Joint Registrar, but on the basis of the . application which had been filed by the petitioner, though not in. the form of a Memorandum of Appeal, and that while an appeal may be filed within the period of limitation prescribed, it could not be entertained or taken up for H · 11-10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A hearin_g .before the· pre-condition indicated in Sub-section (2A) had been complied with. [Para 17] (1115-H; 1116-A-B] . The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Mis Filmistan Limited (1961) 3 SCR 893 and Lakshmi Rattan 8 Engineering Works' Ltd. v. ·Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax,·K;;mpur (1968) :1 SCR 565 and State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Limited (2000) 7 SCC 348, referred to. c Case Law· Referenc'e: (19G1) 3 SCR '893 (1968) 1 SCR 565 (2000) 1 sec. 348 referred to referred· to referred to Para 12 Para 13 Para 14 CIVIL APPEtLATE'JURISDICTION : Special Leave D Petition (C) No'.'18563 of 2005. · , ; From the Judgment and Order c;lated SA.2005 of the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.