Partly allowed

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2012WP/8580/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Recovery Certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act due to lack of proof of service of notice. The court made it conditional upon depositing Rs. 1,00,000 by each petitioner to allow a fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the Recovery Certificate conditionally upon deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 by each petitioner; directed Assistant Registrar to decide afresh after giving opportunity upon deposit.

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 W.P. 8580.2012 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8580 OF 2012

¶4

Sandeep S/o Madhav Kurhe Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar.

¶5

Gorakshnath S/o Madhav Kurhe Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. ........ PETITIONERS

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶8

The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar.

¶9

Kharwandi No. 2 Vivid Vikas Karyakari Seva Society Ltd.,Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. Through its Secretary. .... RESPONDENTS

¶10

2 W.P. 8580.2012 - [ J ]

¶11

Mr. A.D.Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. B.V.Wagh, A.G.P. for the State.

¶13

Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No.3.

¶14

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11/12/2012.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶17

the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶18

The whole gamut of dispute is about the manner of issuance of Recovery Certificate.

¶19

The petitioner contends that no notice was issued to the petitioner at any point of time in the proceedings U/s 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said proceedings are decided without the notice being served.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶21

¶22

The State has filed an affidavit stating that the office of the

¶23

3 W.P. 8580.2012 - [ J ]

¶24

Assistant Registrar had issued notice on 05/02/2010 under certificate of post and thereafter the Recovery Certificate came to be issued on 23/02/2010.

¶25

Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the Assistant Registrar had followed procedure and there is presumption of valid service.

¶26

It appears that the Recovery Certificate is issued against the petitioner. However, there is no record to show that any notice of the said proceeding was served on the petitioner. The notice is said to have been issued under certificate of post. There does not appear any record showing service of said notice.

¶27

In view of that, without going into other aspects of the matter raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, I quash and set aside the impugned Recovery Certificate, however on condition that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 shall deposit an amount of ` 1,00,000/- [ Rupees One Lac only ] each with the respondent no. 3 by 31/01/2013. If the said amount is not deposited, then the impugned Recovery Certificate shall stand and the present order would become non-est. If the said amount is deposited, then the parties shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 04/02/2013.

¶28

4 W.P. 8580.2012 - [ J ]

¶29

The respondent No. 2 after giving proper opportunity, shall decide the

¶30

said proceeding afresh.

¶31

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶32

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ]

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

KNP/W.P. 8580.2012 - [ J ]

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe and Anr. v. the State of Mah 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

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Divnl Lmanager Vs Dilip Rambhau Kamble and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Office Vs Baldevsingh Narsingh Jadhav and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Divisional Office Vs Baldevsingh Narsingh Jadhav and Anr.

Jahiroddin Mushiroddin Vs Suresh Madhavrao Gade

Samadhan Shankar Pawar Vs Divisional Controller Msrtc Aurangabad and Anr.

Pramilabai Tarachand Marathe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.