Dipak Dinkar Patil v. The Divisional Joint Registrar

1960. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar against which the bank filed a revision. The revision was allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the proceedings were remitted back to the Assistant Registrar for deciding them in accordance with law. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar shows that there was absolutely no application of mind. The impugned order of the Divisional Joint Registrar remanding the 2 proceedings cannot therefore be faulted. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Chapter VIII A of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules was inserted by an amendment of 18th May, 2007 and the authority is under Rule 86-E empowered to scrutinize the application. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 86-E empowers the Registrar to call upon the society to comply with such requirements as he may deem fit, in order to ensure that the application is complete in all respects. Such a power can always be exercised by the Registrar. The order of the Registrar in the present case was without due and proper application of mind to the application for recovery. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the recovery application would show that an amount of Rs.4.46 lacs approximately has been recovered on account of interest. These are obviously matters of computation which would have to be taken into account in proceedings under Section 101. At this stage the interference of the Court is not warranted since the computation of the outstandings would be duly verified by the authority upon remand. In the circumstances, the Petition is dismissed. ***** 3