Allowed

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. the Divisional Jt. Reg. Co-Op. Soci. and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2007WP/533/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order allowing revision petitions without notice to the petitioner and without verifying deposit of 50% of the amount was illegal. The petitions were allowed, the impugned orders quashed, and the matter remanded for de novo hearing after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, the writ petitions allowed, and the matter remanded to the Revisional Authority for de novo hearing after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Divisional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2003

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 541 OF 2003

¶7

Ichalkaranji Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Ichalkaranji

¶8

.... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Divisional Jt. Registrar Co-op. Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur & Ors.

¶11

.... Respondents

¶12

Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni for Petitioner

¶13

Mr. S.K. Chinchalikar, AGP for respondent no. 1 Mr. A.B. Borkar for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate i/b M/s YKS Legal for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶14

CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2007

¶15

P.C.

¶16

By consent taken up for final hearing.

¶17

An identical question arise for

¶18

consideration in both these Writ Petitions hence

¶19

same are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶20

3)	A commo	n order passed by the Divisional
Joint	Registrar,	Co-op. Societi	es,	Kolhapur
Division,	Kolhapur	is challenged in	these	petitions
mainly	on two	grounds, one is that	the	impugned

¶21

¶22

order	has bee	n passed in v	iolation	of princip	les of
natural	justice	in as much as	even	notice was	not
issued	to	the petitioner-Bank	though	caveat	was
filed	and	second is that	the	revision	petitions
have	been al	lowed in breach	of	mandatory	provisions

¶23

contained in Section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra

¶24

Co-operative Societies Act.

¶25

4) Paragraph No. 2 of the impugned order

¶26

reads thus :

¶27

	"Reg	istrar	C.S.,	Kolha	pur	Zill	a Nagari	Bank
Association,			Kolh	apur	has		passed	aforesaid
impugned		rec	overy	certifi	cates		in	violation
of	the		order	passed	by	this	authority	in
Revision		Ap	plication	No.			605/02	and
therefore,		I	do	not	find	it	necessary	to
issue	not	ices	to	the	oth	er	side	before
passing				present				judgment".

¶28

5)		It is an admitted position that	within 5
days	from	the date of	filing	of Revision	Petition,
the	same	are allowed with	out any	notice to	the
present	peti	tioners in	whose	favour	recovery
certificates	were	issued. It	is	thus not	in
dispute	that	the impugned	orders	are passed	in
violation	of	principles of	natural	justice.	It is
also	an	admitted position	that	the	applicants

¶29

¶30

before the Registrar had not deposited 50% of	the
amount covered by the Recovery Certificates	which
is mandated by Section 154 (2A) of the Ma	harashtra
Co-operative Societies Act. In an identical set	of
facts, the learned Single Judge of this Court	has
allowed Writ Petition No. 518 and 536/2003	in
which the same common order was challenged.	These
Writ Petitions were not disposed of as, at the	time
of decision of the said petitions, there was	a
controversy as to whether said authorities	have
jurisdiction to deal with the matters wherein	the
claim is exceeding Rs.10.00 Lacs and thus	these
Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed by passing	the
same order as passed in the earlier Writ	Petitions.
Thus the impugned order is set aside and the	matter
is remanded to the Revisional authority for	denovo
hearing and decision of the revisions,	after
granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to	both
the parties, on merit and in accordance with	law
and keeping in view the provisions of section	154
(2A) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies	Act.
All questions are left open, touching the merits	in
revision. The Revisional Authority shall	decide
the revisions as expeditiously as possible	and

¶31

preferably within 12 weeks period from the date of

¶32

receipt of the order.

¶33

¶34

Parties to act on ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this

¶35

Court.

¶36

Rule made absolute in above terms with no

¶37

order as to costs.

¶38

(A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. the Divisional Jt. Reg. Co-Op. Soci. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. the Divisional Jt. Reg. Co-Op. Soci. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Solapur Vs the Director of Marketing - State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gunraj Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Abhiman Raundal Vs Nandkumar Madhukar Sonawane and Ors.

Ichalkarnji Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Divisional Jt.Reg. Co-Op,. Soci. and Ors.

Balkrishna Govind Joil and Another Vs Bajirao Dattray Mungekar and Another

Hariprasad Dwarkadas Bagadia and Anr. Vs Ichalkaranji Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.