Disposed

General Fibres and Dealers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra Thru Govt. Pl. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2007WP/2169/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writ petitions challenging recovery certificates issued for arrears of society dues, the Court relegated the parties to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration on merits. This was conditioned on the petitioners depositing Rs. 1.25 crores within two weeks, to be invested by the society in a fixed deposit scheme.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners relegated to Deputy Registrar for fresh hearing on merits, contingent upon deposit of Rs. 1.25 crores within two weeks.

General Fibres and Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

MST

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.2169 OF 2007
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.2170 OF 2007

¶5

 General Fibres and Dealers
 Pvt.Ltd. Petitioners

¶6

 versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.Chirag Balsara a/w Hitesh Mutha i/by Shaunak
 Satpute & Co. for petitioners.

¶9

 Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for respondents 1 to 3.

¶10

 Mr.P.V.Dhopatkar for respondent no.4.

¶11

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶12

 DATE : 19th November 2007

¶13

 PC :

¶14

 1. Both these writ petitions are being disposed
 of by this common order. Rule. Rule returnable
 forthwith by consent, as the Advocates for the
 respondents waive service.

¶15

 2. The petitioners before this Court are members

¶16

 of respondent society. According to the
 respondent society, the petitioners were in

¶17

MST

¶18

 ((-2-))

¶19

 arrears of society dues. As a result, the
 society pursued the matter for issuance of
 Recovery Certificate. Accordingly, two separate
 Recovery Certificates came to be issued. It is
 the case of the society that before issuance of
 such recovery certificates, the petitioners were
 duly served but failed to appear before the
 Deputy Registrar. After issuance of recovery
 certificates, the petitioners took out an
 application before the Deputy Registrar who, in
 turn, by the impugned orders, has taken a view
 that he has no power to reopen the proceedings.
 At the same time, the Deputy Registrar has
 expressed views on merits which appear to be in
 favour of the petitioners.

¶20

 3. Ordinarily, the petitioners ought to have
 carried the matter by way of statutory remedy
 being revision before the appropriate authority
 under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
 Societies Act. The petitioners, however, chose
 to file present writ petitions before this Court
 raising diverse grounds including excessiveness
 of the claim of the society and its authority to
 demand such amount.

¶21

 4. In substance, the Recovery Certificates have

¶22

 ((-3-))

¶23

MST

¶24

 been issued against the petitioners and in favour
 of the society. The said proceedings had
 proceeded against the petitioners ex-parte, as
 they did not appear before the concerned
 authority. According to the petitioners, they
 were never served with the notice informing that
 the matter was to proceed against them. It is
 not necessary to burden this judgement with
 various contentions raised on behalf of
 petitioners except to observe that after hearing
 both sides, to my mind, this is imminently fit
 case in which parties should be relegated before
 the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration of
 the entire matter on merits in accordance with
 law. In all fairness, even the respondent
 society agreed for such a course but on condition
 that the petitioners should be put to some terms
 and all questions on merits are left open to be
 decided by the Deputy Registrar before whom the
 parties are being relegated.

¶25

 5. Accordingly, the petitioners are shown this
 indulgence on condition that they shall deposit
 an aggregate sum of Rs.1.25 crores (Rs.One crore
 twenty five lakhs only) with the society within
 two weeks from today. Indeed, such deposit will
 be without prejudice to the rights and

¶26

 ((-4-))

¶27

MST

¶28

 contentions of the respective parties. The
 petitioners shall deposit the amount on clear
 understanding that the respondent society will
 invest that amount in suitable fixed deposit
 scheme of any nationalised bank until the matter
 is finally decided by the Deputy Registrar.
 Respondent society through counsel on
 instructions of Mr.Vishwas Dani, Accountant of
 the respondent society who is personally present
 in the Court, who in turn claims to have
 authority on behalf of the Managing Committee of
 the society to give such undertaking, assures
 that as soon as the amount is deposited by the
 petitioners with the society, the same will be
 invested in suitable fixed deposit scheme on the
 following bank working day. That undertaking is
 accepted.

¶29

 6. It is, however, made clear that if the
 petitioners fail to deposit the aforesaid amount
 within specified time, it would necessarily
 follow that these petitions are dismissed in
 which case the order of Deputy Registrar as well
 as the Recovery Certificates will come into
 effect forthwith and get revived. The society
 shall then be free to pursue the claim against
 the petitioners on the basis of the said Recovery

¶30

 ((-5-))

¶31

MST

¶32

 Certificates which are subject matter of
 challenge in present petitions against
 petitioners in accordance with law.

¶33

 7. In the event, however, if the petitioners
 deposit the amount in time with the society, the
 parties shall appear before the Deputy Registrar
 on 06th December 2007 at 11.00 a.m; in his
 office, on which date the Deputy Registrar may
 proceed with the hearing of the recovery
 certificate proceedings or assign some other
 suitable date, as may be advised. It is made
 clear that no separate notice will be issued for
 the hearing before the Deputy Registrar as the
 parties have taken notice thereof in terms of
 order passed today in Court. The contesting
 private parties assure to remain present before
 the Deputy Registrar on the relevant date and
 time and place as mentioned earlier.

¶34

 8. Needless to observe that in the event the
 petitioners succeed in the proceedings and the
 liability of the petitioners is determined to be
 lesser than Rs.1.25 crores, to that extent the
 petitioners will be entitled for reimbursement of
 such amount from the society along with interest
 accrued thereon from and out of the amount which

¶35

 ((-6-))

¶36

MST

¶37

 will be invested by the society in the fixed
 deposit scheme. Whereas, if the amount finally
 determined in the proceedings is higher than
 Rs.1.25 crores, the petitioners would be liable
 to pay such amount in accordance with the orders
 to be passed by the concerned authorities, in
 addition to society becoming entitled to encash
 the Fixed Deposit Receipt.

¶38

 9. The parties will be free to pursue their
 remedy as may be available in law and the
 adjustments of amounts against each other will be
 subject to the out come of such proceedings.

¶39

 10. The Deputy Registrar to conclude the
 proceedings expeditiously and in any case not
 later than 11th January 2008.

¶40

 11. Writ Petitions disposed of accordingly in
 the above terms with costs quantified at
 Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousands only) in each
 matter to be paid to the respondent society
 towards litigation costs.

¶41

 (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

General Fibres and Dealers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra Thru Govt. Pl. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Fibres and Dealers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra Thru Govt. Pl. and 3 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

M.T.N.L. Vs Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigamltd Vs M/S Neon Trading Corpn

M.T.N.L. Vs Pethe Nihon Chemicals Ltd.

M/S. Crc Carrier Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Om Prakash Joshi

Dalal Brothers Freight Forwarders Private Limited Vs the Transport and Dock Workers Union and 2 Ors.

General Employees Union Vs M/S Inter Gold (India) Pvt. Ltd. and 7 Ors.