Dismissed

Ramlal Budha Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Jul 2014WP/2341/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging a recovery certificate and sale certificate. The court held that since the auction sold the property for more than the upset price, there was no substance to the petitioner's claim of underpricing. The court noted the petitioner's inaction in depositing dues for five years and failure to provide a better offer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition to quash the recovery certificate and sale certificate is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ramlal Budha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

2341.13wp

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2341 OF 2013

¶5

Ramlal s/o Budho Patil, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. At post Vidhgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner

¶6

versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Jalgaon and others. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. For respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 4 & 5. Mr. U.L. Momale, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 6 and 7.

¶8

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶9

DATED : 4TH JULY, 2014

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. The petitioner has questioned the recovery certificate

¶12

issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 27/08/2007 against him at the behest of respondent-cooperative society. Recovery under the said certificate is sought to be made under Section 156 read with Rule 107(14)(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

¶13

2341.13wp -2-

¶14

The petitioner having borrowed the amount towards loan from the respondent-bank, has suffered recovery proceedings of certificate dated 27/08/2007 ordering recovery of amount of Rs.5,82,790/-.

¶15

So far as loan in question, the petitioner has mortgaged agricultural land Gat No. 81 area 2H-07R, half share in the said land.

¶16

For the purpose of recovery of dues respondent-cooperative society conducted auction on 28/10/2009 and received highest bid of Rs.6,18,000/-from one Raju Subhash Gujare.

¶17

It is the case of present petitioner that he has objected the said auction and as such, same was cancelled.

¶18

Subsequent thereto, as the petitioner failed to honour recovery certificate, the matter was referred to the District Deputy Registrar, Jalgaon for ascertaining upset price of the agricultural land in question i.e., half share of the petitioner in land Gat No. 81 total 2H-07R at mouje Awar, Taluka and DIstrict Jalgaon. The District Deputy Registrar has fixed upset price at Rs.2,82,365/-.

¶19

Subsequent thereto, it appears that the property was

¶20

-3-

¶21

auctioned and sale certificate was issued on 04/12/2012 by the respondent-society. The property in question was sold by respondent-society for Rs.4,32,000/- against upset price of Rs.2,82,365/-. In fact, this upset price is for entire land and not for half share.

¶22

The fact remains that the land in question was auctioned by the respondent-society for amount which is more than upset price fixed by the authority under the Co-operative Societies Act.

¶23

The sole ground that is raised by the petitioner while questioning the recovery certificate and sale certificate in this petition that, in earlier round of auction, same property has fetched price of Rs.6,18,000/- and that sale was cancelled at the behest of petitioner. The petitioner submits that property ought to have fetched more price than the price on which it was auctioned. The petitioner for the said purpose invited attention of this Court to Rule-107 of the Cooperative Societies Act.

¶24

While countering the above referred submissions, Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 invited attention of this Court to the fact that though earlier auction was cancelled at the behest of present petitioner,

¶25

2341.13wp -4-

¶26

however the procedure as contemplated under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, more particularly Rules 86A and 107 was followed by respondent-bank. He invited attention of this Court to the pleadings of the petition so as to demonstrate that no legal ground is raised or canvassed in support of the prayer for quashing of the recovery certificate issued in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He further submits that there is an alternate remedy available to the present petitioner so as to raise challenge to the auction sale and relies on provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. He further submits that the fact that the property was auctioned was well within knowledge of the present petitioner. Petitioner has neither deposited any amount in the bank to show bonafides nor brought any buyer with more offer. As such, he prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶27

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties it appears that the recovery certificate was issued by the respondent authority in favour of respondent No.5 on 27/08/2007. From 28/07/2007 till last auction i.e., almost for five years, the petitioner remains idle and has not responded to the said certificate by showing bonafides either by depositing amount or honoring the said certificate in any other manner. The petitioner rather has indulged in activities of stalling auction as it apparent from the fact that earlier auction

¶28

2341.13wp

¶29

proceedings were required to be cancelled at his behest. Earlier auction that took place on 28/10/2009 was cancelled at the behest of petitioner as pleaded in paragraph-5 of the petition.

¶30

Even today, having considered his contention on merits it appears that the price that was offered by auction purchaser and in whose favour sale certificate is issued has given bid of more than amount that was decided by the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

¶31

In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the petition, same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶32

Tupe/ 04.07.14

Ramlal Budha Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal Budha Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Ankushnagar Vs Samarth Seva Bhavi Trust Ankushnagar and Others.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shardabai Shivappa Atnure and Anr.

Dhanraj Ruprao Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Mukundrao Shamrao Paithane

Kesharbai Bhimraj Paymode Vs Shankar Shriram Chandgude