Dismissed

Jayashri Dilip Kumbhar v. M. D. Pawar Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Urun-Islampur and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013WP/1869/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the dismissal of a revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Court held the challenge time-barred and banking recovery actions proper.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no interference warranted in the impugned order dismissing the revision application.

Jayashri Dilip Kumbhar Vs M. D. Pawar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-1869.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1869 OF 2013

¶5

Jayashri Dilip Kumbhar .. Petitioner Vs. M.D. Pawar People’s Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vikas Mali for the Petitioners. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos.7 to 9.

¶7

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 13 JUNE 2013

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶10

The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur dated 22 November 2012 dismissing the revision application filed by the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner had filed a revision application against auction proceedings and confirmation of the auction sale dated 14 October 2011.

¶11

The Petitioner is a daughter of the Guarantor. The Principalborrower had obtained a vehicle loan in the year 2000 and he committed default in repayment . The Respondent-Bank applied for recovery certificate and recovery certificate was issued on 18 June 2005. Two properties i.e. Gat No.942/1 and CTS No.1150 were attached on

¶12

ppn 2 wp-1869.13.doc

¶13

16 May 2008 and on 1 August 2009. Thereafter, auction of the properties was held on 24 August 2011 which was confirmed on 14 October 2011. Sale deed was executed in favour of the auction purchaser on 19 October 2011 and 23 December 2011. Thereafter, the auction purchaser has taken possession of the properties and has built a house on the same. At this stage, the Petition is moved.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner, who is the daughter of the Guarantor, has 1/6^th share in both the properties which are ancestral properties. The learned Counsel submitted that the suit filed by her for claiming 1/6^th share is pending and during pendency of the suit the action is taken by the Bank. The learned Counsel submitted that after the sale of first property, loan amount was satisfied and, therefore, there was no need to put the second property for sale.

¶15

The recovery certificate is of the year 2005. Sale has been confirmed in the year 2011. Sale deed is executed. The auction purchaser has built a house on the said property. The Bank has taken action as per the recovery certificate which has not yet been set aside by the Court. No fault can be found with the action of the respondent-Bank in recovering the amount pursuant to the recovery certificate. The respondent-Bank has placed on record in its say that certain additional amount remains with the Bank which the Bank is ready to refund. As far as the suit filed by the Petitioner is concerned, it will proceed on its own merits and pendency of the suit could not have been impediment in the way of the Bank recovering its legitimate dues. The challenge at

¶16

ppn 3 wp-1869.13.doc

¶17

the behest of the daughter of the Guarantor, at this stage, is hopelessly belated. No interference is warranted in the impugned order.

¶18

The Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶19

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Jayashri Dilip Kumbhar v. M. D. Pawar Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Urun-Islampur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayashri Dilip Kumbhar v. M. D. Pawar Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Urun-Islampur 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

Rajendra P. Shetye and Ors. Vs Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Sanjay Tribak Salve Vs State Chief Information Commissioner, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sareeta Complex Building NO.7 Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S. Mukul and Borhters and Ors.

Shri. Dattaram Gunaji Jadhav and Ors. Vs the Dy. Collector (Encroach), Mumbai City and Ors.

Kashinath Piraji Dege Vs the Commissioner of Police, Dist. Thane and Ors.

Mr. Tahir Guldar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.