Allowed

The Suruchi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Harish Shriyan, Secreary v. District Deputy Registrar (Iii), Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2012WP/1853/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Petitioner filed the Revision Application within the two-month limitation period from the date of receiving the impugned order. Consequently, the direction to condone delay was without merit, and the order rejecting the Revision was quashed to be heard on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02/12/2008 rejecting the Revision and the delay condonation application is quashed. The Revisional Authority is directed to decide the Revision on merits within six months.

The Suruchi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP-1853/12

¶2

AAB

¶3

.. 1 ..

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1853 Of 2012

¶6

The Suruchi Co.Op. Housing Society, Ltd. Through Harish Shriyan, Secretary. ... Petitioner. V/s.

¶7

District Dy. Registrar (III), Co-operative Societies, Mumbai And Ors. ... Respondents.

¶8

Shri S.M.Shettigar and Shri Chadrakant Yadav for the Petitioner. Shri S.D.Rairykar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Mahesh Vora, Respondent No.4 in person. or the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 20^th April, 2012.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Respondent No.4 in-person. Since the point involved in the petition is short, by consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶12

2 The few facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. Respondent No.4 is member of the Petitioner-Society. The Petitioner had filed proceedings against Respondent No.4 before Respondent No.3, under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative

¶13

.. 2 .. WP-1853/12

¶14

AAB

¶15

Societies Act, 1960 for issuance of recovery certificate. It was the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No.4 was in arrears of the maintenance and therefore it was constrained to file the said proceedings. The Respondent No.3 rejected the Petitioner's application by order dated 30/08/2008. The Petitioner thereafter on 04/11/2008 filed Revision Application under section154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against Respondent No.3. It was the contention of the Petitioner that copies of the order passed by Respondent No.3 on 30/08/2008 were received by them on 08/09/2008 and therefore Revision Application filed on 04/11/2008 was within time. The office of Respondent No.2 however, wrote a letter to the Petitioner on 04/12/2008 and directed to file application for condonation of delay. In pursuance of this direction, Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay, however the same came to be rejected by Respondent No.1 and therefore, Petitioner is before this Court.

¶16

3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the order passed by Respondent No.1, under section101 is received by the Petitioner on 08/09/2008, Revision filed on 04/11/2008 is within limitation.

¶17

4 The Respondent No.4 in-person opposed the petition. He submitted that the Petitioner has not followed the proper procedure in filing Revision Application. He submitted that Petitioner tendered copy of the Revision Application in Inward Section of the Office of Respondent No. 2 and therefore, that cannot be considered as filing of the Revision. Respondent No.4 also makes a grievance that though he has filed a Caveat, copy of Revision was not sent to him. He submitted that when he made

¶18

.. 3 .. WP-1853/12

¶19

AAB

¶20

inquiry whether the Petitioner has filed Revision against Order of Respondent No.3, at that time office of Respondent No.2 made search and found that Petitioner has delivered copy of Revision in Inward Section. He submitted that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has filed Revision Application on 04/11/2008. He lastly submitted that the impugned order is correct and no interference is required.

¶21

5 Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned AGP and Respondent No.4 in-person, I find merit in the Revision. There is no dispute that Respondent No.3 rejected Petitioner's Application under section 101 on 30/08/2008. The Petitioner in this Revision has made specific averment that copy of the Order passed by Respondent No.3 was received by them on 08/09/2008. This averment is accepted by Respondent No.4, as can be seen from his reply to the delay condonation application. ( Copy of reply filed by Respondent No.4 is annexed at Exh-F to this petition). In para 1 of this reply, Respondent No.4 has stated that copy of the order passed by Respondent No.3 was received by him on 08/09/2008 and he has further stated that the Petitioner must have received the copy on the same date. Therefore, it can safely be taken that copy of the order dated 30/08/2008 was received by the Petitioner on 08/09/2008.

¶22

6 The limitation to file Revision under section 154 (3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, challenging an order passed under section 101 is two months from the date of communication of decision of the order impugned in the Revision. Therefore, when it is accepted that copy of the order passed by Respondent No.3 is received by the Petitioner on 08/09/2008, the Petitioner was obliged to file Revision on

¶23

.. 4 .. WP-1853/12

¶24

AAB

¶25

or before 07/11/2008. It is the case of Petitioner that they have filed Revision on 04/11/2008. Respondent No.4 however states that the Petitioner has tendered copy of Revision in Inward Section and therefore it cannot be said that Petitioner has filed Revision on 04/11/2008. I am not accepting the contention of Respondent No.4 in this regard.

¶26

6 Exh-D page 69 to the petition is the letter written by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner. This letter is written on 04/12/2008. Respondent No.2 has accepted in this letter that Petitioner has filed Revision on 04/09/2008. Despite that, Petitioner was directed to file application for condonation of delay. The direction to Petitioner to file application for condonation of delay, in my opinion, is uncalled for as the Petitioner had filed Revision within the period of two months. In spite of these facts, Petitioner complied with the order of Respondent No.2 passed on 02/12/2008 and filed application for condonation of delay by way of abundant caution. However, this application is rejected by Respondent No.1.

¶27

7 Since I have come to the conclusion that there was no delay in filing Revision on the part of Petitioner, it was not necessary for the Petitioner them to file application for condonation of delay. Even though such an application was filed and it was rejected, that will not affect merits of the Petitioner's case. The Petitioner's Revision, in my opinion deserves to be heard by the Revisional Authority on merits as there is no delay. In the light of above discussion, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order.

¶28

i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

ORDER

WP-1853/12

.. 5 ..

AAB

¶33

ii) Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. iii) Revisional Authority viz. Respondent No.1 shall decide the Petitioner's Revision filed challenging the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by Respondent No.3 on merits.

¶34

iv) Needless to mention that Respondent No.1 shall decide the Revision independently on its own merits and as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 6 months from receipt of this order.

¶35

( Ranjit More, J.)

The Suruchi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Harish Shriyan, Secreary v. District Deputy Registrar (Iii), Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Suruchi Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Harish Shriyan, Secreary v. District Deputy Registrar (Iii), Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai and 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

Shri. Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha and Ors. Vs Shri. Pandurang Hasha Patil and Ors.

Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar - Co-Operative Societies

Damji K. Shah and Ors. Vs Shri Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chs Ltd.

Agrani Yantramag Vinkar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Malangaon and Ors. Vs Sangli Dist. Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Sangli

Shri. Krishnaji Pandurang Patil and Ors. Vs Ecoboard Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Nivrutti Mandu Salunke (Chor) Vs Laxman Pandu Salunke (Chor) and Ors.