✦ Bombay High Court

Sau. Neeta v. The Rahuri Peoples Co-op. Bank

Writ Petition No. 7096 of 2009V R KINGAONKAR

Case at a glance

Bench
V R KINGAONKAR

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. The counsel for the parties submit that the said amount credit in the account of the respondent No. 1 be deemed as compliance with the requirement of section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In this view of the matter, the revisional…

Judgment

Mr. P.S. Pawar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.R. Karpe, advocate for respondent No. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondents No. 3 and 4. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th February, 2010] PER COURT :

1.

By consent, the petition is being disposed of finally.

2.

The petitioner No. 1 filed revision application under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against the order rendered by the respondent No. 3 under section 101 of the said Act. The revision application was not entertained as the petitioner No.1 did not deposit 50 per cent of the amount shown under the certificate. ( 2 )

3.

The petitioner has already deposited 50 per cent of the amount as per order of this Court rendered on 30th October, 2009.

4.

The counsel for the parties submit that the said amount credit in the account of the respondent No. 1 be deemed as compliance with the requirement of section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. In this view of the matter, the revisional authority is directed to restore the revision application and to decide it on merits, assuming that the condition enumerated in sub-clause (2A) is complied with. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional authority i.e. the respondent No. 4 on 8th March, 2010. The revisional authority shall decide the revision application expeditiously after giving proper opportunity to both the sides. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. NPJ/wp7096-09 [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE ( 3 )

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 7096 of 2009). ← Search more judgments