Disposed

Sulochana Kashinath Jangave v. Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through Manager and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2011WP/302/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a recovery notice issued by a cooperative bank. The High Court directed the registrar to hear both the petitioner and her son jointly regarding the adjustment of funds and the recovery proceedings before 31st July 2011.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Registrar to jointly hear the petitioner and son, pass orders by 31st July 2011, and restrain coercive steps until decided.

Sulochana Kashinath Jangave Vs Indira Mahila Nagari… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp302.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2011

¶5

Sou. Sulochana Kashinath Jangave

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., and others.

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent no.3.

¶11

(CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2011.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1. Heard Advocate Mr. Shirsath for petitioner, Advocate

¶14

Mr. Irpatgire for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. The issuance of recovery certificate under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 22.11.2002 was assailed by petitioner by filing Revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Contention was, amount deposited by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000/- towards discharge of the outstanding loan liability in C.C. limit was not accounted for. On 26.08.2003, Divisional Joint Registrar remanded the matter back to

¶15

the respondent no.3 for giving fresh opportunity of hearing to parties. On 20th September, 2004 the respondent no.3 issued

¶16

¶17

wp302.11

¶18

letter to respondent no.1 and stated that till loan accounts are reconciled through competent Chartered Accountant, no action for recovery should be taken. This position continued for about six years and on 27.12.2010, the respondent no.2 issued demand notice under Rule 107(3) for sum of Rs. 4,54,085/-. This has been questioned before this Court.

¶19

Learned Counsel for petitioner contends that after remand the Divisional Joint Registrar on 26.08.2003 or after reconciliation if any through Chartered Accountant, the petitioner has not been heard. He invited attention to certain receipts issued by respondent no.1 to show that refund of amount of Rs. 3,70,000/-.

¶20

Learned A.G.P. as also Advocate Mr. Irpatgire support the impugned order. Advocate Mr. Irpatgire points out that son of the petitioner was also extended loan and upon instructions of petitioner, the amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- has been adjusted towards loan account of that son. He therefore states that the notice of recovery issued on 27.12.2010 is just and proper and there is no question of extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶21

After hearing respective counsel, I find that remand was specifically for giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and

¶22

¶23

wp302.11

¶24

thereafter the respondent no.3 has restrained the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from proceedings further with recovery till the loan account is reconciled. The petitioner admittedly is not heard thereafter. Whether, the amount deposited by the present petitioner could have been adjusted towards the loan liability of her son is also question which needs to be looked into. Advocate Mr. Irpatgire has informed that separate recovery proceedings are already instituted against the said son and same are also pending with respondent no.3.

¶25

In this situation, the interest of justice will be met with by directing the respondent no.3 to take up both the matters together and to extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the said son. The respondent no.3 shall thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶26

Parties are directed to appear before the respondent no.3 on 19th May, 2011 and the respondent no.3 shall thereafter attempt to decide the proceedings as early as possible and in any case by 31st July, 2011.

¶27

Till respondent no.3 decides the controversy, the respondent no.1 and 2 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner

¶28

¶29

wp302.11

¶30

in the matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶31

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

¶32

gas/wp302.11

Sulochana Kashinath Jangave v. Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Kashinath Jangave v. Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanath Laxman Bhor and Ors. Vs Shantaram Savleram Kanwade and Ors.

Suresh Keshav Landage Vs Madhyamik Shikshan Vidya Mandal and Ors.

Balaji Madhavrao Gaikwad Vs the President, Jai Malhar Seva Bhavi Sanstha, and Ors.

Ahmedkhan Nawabkhan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.

Nandu Dinkar Chaudhari Vs Kiran Govinda Bhandgale and Ors.

Gorakhachand Manakchand Somani and Anr. Vs Gajmal Nathu Patil and Ors.