Mrs. Gangubai Sukdeo Choudhari & Ors. v. Dadasaheb Dr. N.M. Kabre Nagari
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 s. 154(2A)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the case of Dilawar Hakim Shah (supra), this Court held that, because application for condonation of delay is filed along with appeal, it cannot be said that bar of Section 152(2-A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 applies even for considering application…
- Para 77. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. The same are sustained. Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. A. A. SAYED JUDGE fmp/wp2518.10
Judgment
Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent No.2 & 3 ..... ..... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.2519 OF 2010 Mr. Anil Sukdeo Choudhari & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Dadasaheb Dr. N.M. Kabre Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Erandol & ors. ... RESPONDENTS Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent No.2 & 3 ..... ..... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.2525 OF 2010 Mr. Sunil Sukdeo Choudhari & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS Dadasaheb Dr. N.M. Kabre Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Erandol & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... :: 2 :: W.P. No.2518/2010 with W.P. No.2519/2010 with W.P. No.2525/2010 Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners Shri V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent No.2 & 3 ..... CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 22nd December, 2010 PER COURT :
The aforesaid petitions call in question the orders dated
31.10.2009, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik, whereby the revision applications of the petitioners were not entertained in view of the express provision of Section 152(2-A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, whereunder to entertain a revision application filed against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101, there is a requirement of deposit of 50% of the total amount of recovery of dues.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that, in the present cases, the Divisional Joint Registrar has erred in not entertaining the Revisions for not depositing the 50% amount of the recovery dues inasmuch as he ought to have first decided the applications seeking condonation of delay of the Revisions. He has relied upon following two cases of Single Judges of this Court :- Vivek Bhila Patil & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (3) Bom. C.R. 754 Dilawar Hakim Shah Vs. Special Recovery Officer & others 2006 (1) Bom. C.R. 141 :: 3 :: W.P. No.2518/2010 with W.P. No.2519/2010 with W.P. No.2525/2010
In the case of Dilawar Hakim Shah (supra), this Court held that, because application for condonation of delay is filed along with appeal, it cannot be said that bar of Section 152(2-A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 applies even for considering application for condonation of delay. In the case of Vivek Bhila Patil (supra) also this Court held that, the bar under Section 154(2-A) will apply only when the application for revision is being entertained and it does not apply to application for condonation of delay. In both the aforementioned reported cases, the order of rejection of revision was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Divisional Joint Registrar to reconsider the application for condonation of delay on merits.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. In my view, the said reported decisions would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. In the reported cases, the Divisional Joint Registrar had, without deciding the application for condonation of delay, dismissed the revisions.
In the present case, however, I find that, the impugned order in the revisions are passed by condoning the delay. In paragraph No.2 of the impugned orders, it is specifically stated as follows :-- “In the interest of natural justice, delay as caused in filing of this revision application is hereby condoned.” :: 4 :: W.P. No.2518/2010 with W.P. No.2519/2010 with W.P. No.2525/2010 Thereafter, in the operative part of the impugned order, it is stated as follows : “(1) Revision Application No. R-NIL OF 2009 is hereby not entertained and admitted in view of express provisions of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.”
Thus, the facts in the present cases are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the delay in the present cases were condoned and it was only upon condoning the delay that the revisions were dismissed in view of the bar under Section 154(2-A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. The same are sustained. Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. A. A. SAYED JUDGE fmp/wp2518.10
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154(2A).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Dec 2010. The bench was A A SAYED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.