Disposed
Hemchandra Shankarrao Masulkar v. the Divisional Joint Registrar-Pune and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/5536/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYIN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
WRIT PETITION NO.5535 OF 2004
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5536 OF 2004
Hemchandra Shankarrao Masulkar, .. Petitioner.
Vs
1. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Pune Division and ors. .. Respondents.
Mr.P.K.Hushing, for the petitioner.
Mr M.H.Sokar, AGP for respondent nos 1 and 2.
Mr Kishor V. Tembe, for respondent no.3.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J.
DATE : 14th October, 2004.
PC:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in both these petitions has
challenged the order dated 5.6.2004 passed by Divisional
Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, by which
the revision application filed by the petitioner has
been rejected. The revision was directed against the
order dated 19.9.2003 passed in the application filed by
the petitioner seeking stay to the proceedings under the
provisions of section 101 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act,1960. The stay was sought on
the ground that the petitioner’s Dispute bearing Nos.
101/2002 and 102/2002 filed in the Cooperative Court No.
II, seeking declaration and injunction contending that
the petitioner never had any intention to stand surety
for the loan amount of Rs.10.50 lacs and Rs.17 lacs
respectively but he had agreed to stand surety only for
the term loan and cash credit of Rs. one lac
respectively, is pending. According to the petitioner,
if the recovery proceedings under section 101 is not
stayed, there wil be conflicting decisions of the two
forums in the proceedings between the same parties and
in respect of the similar issues involved in both the
proceedings. The Disputes were filed on 12.6.2002,
while the recovery application under section 101 was
filed by the respondent-Bank on 30.10.2002. The stay to
the recovery proceedings was also sought on the ground
that if the petitioner succeeds in the Dispute, there
cannot be a recovery as sought by the respondent-Bank
against him. In short, the petitioner claims that the
matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue
in the disputes filed earlier between the same parties.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considered the material placed before me, I am satisfied
that the following order will meet the ends of justice.
As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the parties
also agreed for the following order.
(i) The Co-operative Court No.II at Pune, shall decide
Dispute Nos 101/2002 and 102/2002 as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner
to communicate this order to the concerned Co-operative
Court within four weeks from today.
(ii) It is open for the Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, to proceed with the hearing of
recovery Application Nos. 101/Rupee/ Chinchwad
/740/2002-03 and 101/Rupee /Chinchwad /741/2002-03 and
dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of four months from the date
of receipt of this order.
(iii) The respondent-Bank to communicate this order to
the concerned Assistant registrar within four weeks from
today.
(iv) If the orders in the recovery proceedings are
passed before disposal of the Disputes, same shall
remain stayed till disposal of the Disputes in so far as
the petitioner is concerned.
(v) The affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on
record and marked ’X" for identification. Statements
made in the affidavit are accepted. In addition to the
affidavit, Mr Hushing,learned counsel for the
petitioner, on instructions from his client, states that
the petitioner shall furnish security to the extent of
Rs One Lac each in both the recovery applications to the
satisfaction of the concerned Assistant Registrar,
within eight weeks from today.
4. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
. While disposing of the writ petitions, I shall not be
understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case. The Co-operative Court as well as
Assistant Registrar, shall deal with the matters before
them on merits in accordance with law.
. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order
which may be made available to them.
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
Hemchandra Shankarrao Masulkar
The Divisional Joint Registrar, Pune Division
D.B.BHOSALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court