Allowed

Ganpat Dnyanoba Gungane v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2012WP/7261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged notices issued by the Additional Collector/Bank Chairman demanding loan arrears under Section 173 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The court held such notices were not tenable as recovery must follow the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, quashing them while leaving the bank's recovery powers under the Cooperative Act intact.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices issued under Section 173 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Ganpat Dnyanoba Gungane Vs the State of Mah… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders

¶3

¶4

1] WRIT PETITION NO. 7261 OF 2012

¶5

Ganpat S/o. Dnyanoba Gungane, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Rajegaon, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

2] The Additional Collector, Beed and the Chairman, Administrative Board, Beed District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶9

.. Respondent/s

¶10

2] WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7276 OF 2012

¶11

Smt. Kiranbai W/o. Arungao Ingale Age 37 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Rajegaon, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner/s

¶12

Versus

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders

¶15

¶16

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶17

2] The Additional Collector, Beed and the Chairman, Administrative Board, Beed District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶18

.. Respondent/s

¶19

3] with WRIT PETITION NO.7277 OF 2012

¶20

Shivaji s/o. Baburao Ingale, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri, R/o. Rajegaon, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner/s

¶21

Versus

¶22

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶23

2] The Additional Collector, Beed and the Chairman, Administrative Board, Beed District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶24

.. Respondent/s

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶26

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders

¶27

¶28

4] WRIT PETITION NO. 7282 OF 2012

¶29

Smt. Sitabai W/o. Rambhau Ingale Age 60 years, Occ. Agri, R/o. Rajegaon, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner/s

¶30

Versus

¶31

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶32

2] The Additional Collector, Beed and the Chairman, Administrative Board, Beed District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶33

.. Respondent/s

¶34

5] WRIT PETITION NO. 7284 OF 2012

¶35

Rameshwar S/o. Narayan Dudhal Age 35 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Lahul, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner/s

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶37

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders

¶38

¶39

Versus

¶40

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶41

2] The Additional Collector, Beed and the Chairman, Administrative Board, Beed District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶42

.. Respondent/s

¶43

6] WRIT PETITION NO. 7285 OF 2012

¶44

Laxman S/o. Rajaram Ingale Age 60 years, Occ. Agri. R/o. Rajegaon, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. .. Petitioner/s

¶45

Versus

¶46

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶47

2] The Additional Collector, Beed and the Chairman, Administrative

¶48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶49

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders

¶50

¶51

Board, Beed District Central Co operative Bank Ltd., Beed, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶52

.. Respondent/s

¶53

Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioners Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1.

¶54

Mr. Abhijit Choudhari h/f. Mr. D.J. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶55

CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE :- 1st OCTOBER, 2012.

¶56

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER NARESH H. PATIL, J]:-

¶57

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶58

2] The petitioners in this group of petitions have challenged the notices issued to them by the Administrator i.e. Additional Collector, Beed ( being Chairman of Administrative Board, District Central Cooperative Bank) vide which he has directed the petitioners to deposit the amount towards arrears of loan alongwith interest, which was borrowed by them from the

¶59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶60

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders 6

¶61

bank by way of loan, within the stipulated time frame, else, action would be taken against them under the provisions of Section 173 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶62

3] An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, wherein, it has been stated in para.12 as under :-

¶63

“I say that, admission of dues by the petitioner in reply is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition, however, rest of the contents of paragraph no.6 alleging that respondent no.2 is not empowered to issue notice are false and denied in toto. I say that, inadvertently, the provisions are quoted it does not mean that rest of the contents of notice are not sustainable“.

¶64

4] We do not find any reply to the specific contention raised by the petitioners that the respondent No.2 is not authorized to take action under Section 173 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. We are of the view that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder, there is a procedure prescribed for the bank to initiate recovery proceedings.In the facts of the case, we find that the impugned notices are not tenable as they are issued under the provisions of Section 173 the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. For the said reason, the impugned notices are quashed

¶65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶66

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's WP7261.12group Orders

¶67

¶68

and set aside.

¶69

6] The writ petitions are allowed. It is clarified that the respondent No.2 i.e. Administrator, is entitled to take appropriate steps for initiating recovery proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All issues are kept open.

¶70

7] Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶71

[A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.]

¶72

[NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶73

grt/-

Ganpat Dnyanoba Gungane v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Dnyanoba Gungane v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Prashant Murlidhar Gore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Hamal Mapari Kamgar Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Gangapur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust and Anr. Vs the Council of Architecture and Ors.

Shailendra Vasant Panpatil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Muzfar Abbas Mohd Dildar Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shyam Balu Bomod Vs the State of Mah and Ors.