Allowed

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

Bombay HC4 Dec 2012WP/8581/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, entertained a writ petition seeking quashing of a Recovery Certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The court found that no proof of service of notice existed on the petitioners, violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Recovery Certificate dated 23/02/2010 is set aside; parties relegated before Respondent No. 2.

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 8581.2012 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8581 OF 2012

¶4

Sandeep Madhav Kurhe Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o : Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 2. Gorakshnath Madhav Kurhe Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o : Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. : Ahmednagar. ........ PETITIONERS

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Kharwandi No.1 Vividh Vikas Karyakari Seva Society Ltd., Kharwandi, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar Through its Secretary. .... RESPONDENTS

¶7

2 W.P. 8581.2012 - [ J ]

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 04/12/2012.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶14

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

¶15

The Recovery Certificate dated 23/02/2010 is assailed in the present Writ Petition. The petitioners have alleged that they were not served with the notice of the proceedings filed by the respondent No. 3. The said Certificate is bad in law and can not be sustained as it is in violation of natural justice.

¶16

According to Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners, no liability can be fastened on the basis of such Certificate.

¶17

Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioners have alternate remedy U/s 154 of the

¶18

3 W.P. 8581.2012 - [ J ]

¶19

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act [ For short, ' M.C.S. Act ' ]. The Recovery Certificate has been validly issued.

¶20

It would appear that the application was filed for getting the Recovery Certificate U/s 101 of the M.C.S. Act by the Respondent No. 3 on 05/02/2010. The notices were issued to the present petitioners on the same day and the said notices were made returnable on 22/02/2010. There is nothing on record to show that the said notices were served on the petitioners. On 23/02/2010, the Recovery Certificate has been issued by the Assistant Registrar. There is no proof of service of notice. It appears that the summons were issued by ordinary post. In absence of any proof of service of notice of the proceedings on the petitioners, such a Certificate can not be sustained.

¶21

In normal course, the petitioners would have been relegated to alternate remedy of Revision. But as the Certificate is issued without the notice being served on the petitioner and the same being in violation of principles of natural justice, the present Writ Petition is entertained.

¶22

In light of the above, the impugned Recovery Certificate is set aside and the parties are relegated before the respondent No. 2. The parties shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 20/12/2012. In view

¶23

4 W.P. 8581.2012 - [ J ]

¶24

of that, now separate notice would not be required to be served on the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing and following the proper procedure, decide the proceedings U/s

¶25

101 of the M.C.S. Act expeditiously.

¶26

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

¶27

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE

¶28

KNP/W.P. 8581.2012 - [ 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

Tukaram Aabaji Bhavar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Santosh Shankarrao Pakhare and Anr. Vs Laxmibai Anandrao Shendge

Santosh Shankarrao Pakhare and Anr. Vs Laxmibai Anandrao Shendge

Bharat Engineering Works Ahmednagar through Proprietor Vs Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale

Bharat Engineering Works Ahmednagar through Proprietor Vs Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale

Manish Ramdas Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.