Civil Petition No. 3146 of 2003 · Bombay High Court

By consent respective learned Counsel appearing Petitioner, Respondent No.1 Respondents Nos.5 and 6, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

The challenge petition 25th November 2002 passed State Government Revision Application preferred Petitioner entertained State Government ground remedy Petitioner a dispute section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1960").

The Petitioner Urban Cooperative Bank. Petitioner Respondent mortgaged immoveable property favour The No.2 Petitioner a security repayment advanced Petitioner Respondent No.2. Petitioner-Bank obtained a certificate section The 101 Act 1960 against Respondents Nos.2 Respondents Nos.3 4 guarantors. The : 3 : property mortgaged Respondent No.2 favour Petitioner action recovery proceedings initiated certificate section 101 Act

1960. Even before auction completed,

20th June 2002 passed Respondent No.5 purporting section 100 Act

1960. By certain properties borrowers Respondent No.1-Credit Society ordered transferred favour Respondent No.1 recovery advanced Respondent No.1. One properties covered property Respondent No.2 respect of which a mortgage was created in favour of the Petitioner.

It 20th June 2002 passed Respondent No.5 impugned Petitioner filing a Revision Application under section 154 of the said Act of 1960.

Shri Ingale, learned Counsel Petitioner submitted Revision Application Respondent No.6 merits. He submitted challenge Revision Application passed Respondent No.5 : 4 : provisions section 100 Act 1960, remedy filing a dispute section 91 Act 1960 available therefore, Revision Application rejected ground that the Petitioner can avail of remedy under section 91 of the said Act of 1960.

Shri M.L.Patil, learned Counsel appearing the Respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and the learned A.G.P. also supported the impugned order.

After hearing learned Counsel appearing parties, I opinion impugned wholly unsustainable. The challenge Revision Application preferred Petitioner passed Respondent No.5 section 100 Act

1960. Obviously Petitioner challenged availing remedy filing a dispute section 91 Act

1960. The State Government refused entertain Revision Application ground remedy of approaching the Cooperative Court under section 91 was available to the Petitioner.

In circumstances, impugned 25th November 2002 deserves quashed : 5 : the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner deserves to be remanded to the State Government.

Hence the following order: (i) Order 25th November 2002 passed the Respondent No.6 (Exh.F) is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Revision application preferred Petitioner (Exh.E) remanded Respondent No.6 hearing afresh accordance light of the finding recorded in paragraph No.7 above. (iii) The Respondent No.6 Revision Application merits expeditiously within a possible period months the date of production of authenticated copy of this order. (iv) All contentions on merits are kept expressly open. : 6 : (v) Ad-interim passed Court 30th April 2003 continue operate disposal Revision Application before Respondent No.6 a period 15 communication passed in the Revision Application to the Petitioner. (vi) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vii) The Authorities parties act on authenticated copy of this order. Judge.