Shri Bhaulal v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The order dated 15th September 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2008, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, for condonation…
Judgment
Cause title
6. Smt. Shoba d/o. Sakharam Ahire, Aged : 38 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Sub-Primary Health Service Centre, Kumbephal, Taluka & District : Aurangabad.
7. Smt. Parwatibai w/o. Vithal Borgave, Aged : 32 years, Occupation : Government Service, Sub-Primary Health Centre, Georai-Kuber, Taluka & District : Aurangabad.
8. Smt. Madhubala w/o. Narayan Junlekar, Aged : 55 years, Occupation : Government Service, Primary Health Centre, Shivang, Taluka : Sillod, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents
..........................
Mr. S.R. Jedhe and Mr. R.B. Salve, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mr. M.R. Chhallani, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 and 5.
Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate, for respondent no.6 (3) ..........................
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. Since no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent nos.7 and 8 is being passed, notice upon rule, on the said respondents is waived.
By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th September 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2008, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, for condonation of delay, in filing the revision against the order dated 23rd March 2006, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, thereby issuing recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Mr. S.R. Jedhe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the recovery certificate was never served upon the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that taking into consideration this (4) aspect of the matter, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed.
Mr. M.R. Chhallani, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the learned Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay.
In view of specific contention of the petitioner, that the recovery certificate was not issued to the petitioner, the respondent no.3 was directed to produce the record and also file an affidavit, as to whether the recovery certificate was served upon the petitioner, or not.
From the record, it cannot be seen that the recovery certificate was served to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due, as required. As such, there is no conclusive proof to establish that the recovery certificate was, in fact, served upon the petitioner. It is further to be noted that there were earlier rounds of proceedings between the parties, by way of revision and also by way of writ petition before this court. The petitioner would also be entitled to the benefit Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the period during which the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting the matter before other forums.
In any way, the petitioner has already deposited fifty percent amount under the recovery certificate with the Bank. I, therefore, find that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties to settle the (5) grievance on merits instead of foreclosing the doors of justice on technical grounds.
Operative part
In the result, the petition is allowed.
(i) The order dated 15th September 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 4 of 2008, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner, for condonation of delay, in filing the revision, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 with a direction to decide the revision filed by the present petitioner, on its own merits, within a period of two months from today.
(ii) It is needless to state, that till disposal of the revision by the respondent no.2, no further steps be taken in the matter for recovery of the amount under the recovery certificate.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/WP-6649
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 101; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Dec 2009. The bench was B R GAVAI.
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.