Dismissed

Miss. T.S. Shroff v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2006WP/1694/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Recovery Certificate under Section 101 is sufficient completion of proceedings, and the proper remedy is to approach the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154 rather than pursuing revision for alleged discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on ground of availability of alternate remedy; Bank protected from limitation plea for two weeks if revision is filed.

Miss. T.S. Shroff Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1694 OF 2006

¶5

Nandkumar Bhaskaran Nair...Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors....Respondents

¶8

C.P.Deogirikar for the Petitioners.

¶9

Prashant Nair for the Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Salkar, AGP for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶12

DATE ; 23RD FEBRUARY, 2007.

¶13

P.C :-

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. Mr.Deogirikar, cannot dispute the fact that the
action of the Respondent No.3 Bank under challenge in
this petition is seeking the Recovery Certificate
from the Deputy Registrar under Section 101 of the

¶16

:2:

¶17

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 In other
words, his powers to grant such a Certificate have
been invoked and during the pendency of the Petition
a Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharshtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has indeed been
granted. That Certificate is dated 2.3.2006.

¶18

3.Mr. Deogirikar, contends that this is the
second Recovery Certificate and the Bank cannot
resort to Section 101 when the Petitioner had made
payment of Rs.8 lacs in full and final settlement of
the Bank’s dues.

¶19

4.Mr.Naik, disputes this position and submits
that the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar
would indicate that the Petitioner has no dispute, in
so far as, the claim of the Bank is concerned.

¶20

5.In my view, now that Recovery Certificate has
been granted, the remedy of the Petitioner is to
invoke the jurisdiction of the Divisional Joint
Registrar under Section 154 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and comply with the

¶21

:3:

¶22

mandate of sub-section 2A thereof. This remedy is
efficacious and it would be open for the petitioner
to raise all such pleas as are permissible in law
before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶23

6.Mr.Deogirikar, states that the Petitioner
would approach the Revisional Authority, but, the
Application should not be rejected on the ground of
delay. The Petitioner can be protected.
Accordingly, it is directed that if the Revision
Application is filed within a period of two weeks
from today, the Respondent No.3 Bank would not raise
the plea of limitation before the Divisional Joint
Registrar. Needless to state, that if it is not
filed within this period, it would be open for the
Divisional Joint Registrar to consider the objection
of the Bank with regard to limitation and delay.
Petition is dismissed on the ground of availability
of an alternate equally efficacious remedy and with
the clarification as above.

¶24

7.Further needless to add, that, if the Revision
Application is filed and entertained, the same shall

¶25

:4:

¶26

proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law,
provided the Petitioner complies with the requirement
of deposit as well. Petition dismissed. In view of
the dismissal of the petition itself, Civil
Application taken out by the Petitioner does not
survive and the same is dismissed as infructious.

Miss. T.S. Shroff v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss. T.S. Shroff v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay,City- Viii. Vs Photophone Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay.City- Xvi. Vs Late Shri P.R.Kamani L/H Smt.S.P.Kamani

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai,City- Viii,Mumbai, Vs M/S Nivan Holding P.Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur Vs Karmayogi Dyeing Pvt.Ltd.

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff Vs Mehroo Meherji Vakil and 3 Ors.

Yashodhan Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner and Anr.