Quashed

Madhav Venkatrao Munde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC30 Jan 2014WP/8311/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acquitted the petitioners who challenged the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Court quashed the certificate due to violation of natural justice regarding non-strict adherence to notice procedures under Rules 86-A to F and directed fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificates quashed; parties remanded to Respondent No. 2 to decide afresh following Rules 86-A to F; specific deposit directed for one petition.

Madhav Venkatrao Munde and Others Vs the State of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8311 OF 2013.

¶7

1. Madhav S/o Venkatrao Munde,
Aged 63 years, Occ.Pensioner,
R/o Cidco, N-3, Aurangabad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad.

¶8

2. Yashwant S/o Venkatrao Munde,
Aged 47 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Warwati, Tq. Ambajogai,
Dist.Beed.

¶9

3. Suresh S/o Bhujangrao Ghuge,
Aged 46 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Latur, Tq. and Dist.Latur. ... Petitioners.

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
In the Department of Cooperation,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶12

2. The Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies
(Deputation)
Marathwada Urban Bank's
Association Ltd.,Aurangabad.

¶13

3. Dindayal Nagari Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Prashant Nagar,
Ambajogai, Dist.Beed.

¶14

4. The Special Recovery Officer,
Dindayal Nagari Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Prashant Nagar,

¶15

¶16

Ambajogai, Dist.Beed.

¶17

5. Rajesaheb S/o Shrikrishna Deshmukh,
Aged 48 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Ambajogai, Tq.Ambajogai,
Dist.Beed.

¶18

... Respondents.

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.8312 OF 2013

¶21

1. Madhav S/o Venkatrao Munde,
Aged 63 years, Occ.Pensioner,
R/o Cidco, N-3, Aurangabad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad.

¶22

2. Yashwant S/o Venkatrao Munde,
Aged 47 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Warwati, Tq. Ambajogai,
Dist.Beed.

¶23

3. Suresh S/o Bhujangrao Ghuge,
Aged 46 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Latur, Tq. and Dist.Latur. ... Petitioners.

¶24

Versus

¶25

1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
In the Department of Cooperation,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶26

2. The Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies
(Deputation)
Marathwada Urban Bank's
Association Ltd.,Aurangabad.

¶27

3. Dindayal Nagari Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Prashant Nagar,
Ambajogai, Dist.Beed.

¶28

4. The Special Recovery Officer,

¶29

¶30

Dindayal Nagari Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Prashant Nagar,
Ambajogai, Dist.Beed.

¶31

5. Rajesaheb S/o Shrikrishna Deshmukh,
Aged 48 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Ambajogai, Tq.Ambajogai,
Dist.Beed.

¶32

... Respondents.

¶33

Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, advocate for the
Petitioners.

¶34

Mr.H.A.Joshi, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3
and 4.
Mr.S.R.Palnitkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶35

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶36

 Date : 30.01.2014.

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶38

1.Heard.

¶39

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, taken up for final
hearing.

¶40

3.Recovery certificate issued U/s 101 of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, is
assailed. Mr.Irpatgire, learned counsel for the
petitioners states that at no material point of

¶41

¶42

time, the petitioners were served with notice of
proceedings U/s 101 of the MCS Act. The said
proceedings are exparte. The procedure as is
required under Rule 86-A to F of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Rules has not been
followed. According to the learned counsel, the
said certificates are in violation of the
principles of natural justice.

¶43

4.Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the Bank
submits that the Petitioners are the borrowers.
They have availed the loan. Even notices of the
proceedings U/s 101 of the said Act were issued
by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. As the
petitioners and other persons did not appear,
they were served through paper proclamation. As
such the petitioners can not make any grievance
with regard to non-service of notice. Huge amount
is outstanding. In respect of account involved
in W.P.No.8311/2013, the Respondent bank has
recovered an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees
three lacs fifty thousand). However, no amount
could be recovered in respect of the loan
involved in W.P.No.8312/2013. No error has been

¶44

¶45

committed by the authority while issuing the
certificates.

¶46

5.Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has filed
affidavit, wherein it is stated that the notice
under Registered Post A.D. could not be properly
served, as such the petitioners were served by
paper proclamation in newspaper "Zunjarneta" .

¶47

6.I have gone through the contentions put
forth by the respective counsel. Considering the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, it is manifest that
petitioners were not served with any notice by
RPAD. Notice is said to have been served by
paper publication in newspaper "Zunjarneta". It
is also not clear as to whether the said
newspaper has circulation in Aurangabad and Latur
region, where petitioner Nos.1 and 3 reside or
carry on their occupation.

¶48

7.It is also a fact that the Respondent-
bank recovered substantial amount in W.P.No.
8311/2013. Considering the aforesaid factual

¶49

¶50

matrix, it would be appropriate to afford
petitioners one more opportunity to contest the
proceedings on merits. In the result, I pass the
following order :

¶51

(a)The impugned judgment and order issuing
recovery certificates are quashed and set aside.
The parties are relegated before Respondent No.2,
who shall decide the proceedings U/s 101 of the
said Act afresh by following the procedure as
laid down in Rule 86-A to F of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Rules.

¶52

(b)The recovery i.e. made by the
Respondent-bank shall be subject to the final
decision in the said 101 proceedings. The
petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.
75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) with the
Bank in W.P.No.8312/2013 within a period of four
(4) weeks i.e. on or before 28.2.2014. The said
deposit would be subject to the decision in
proceedings U/s 101 of the MCS Act. The parties
shall appear before the Respondent No.2 on
3.3.2014. In view of the fact that the Recovery

¶53

¶54

certificates are set aside, the pension accounts
of the petitioners shall stand free from
attachment. The Respondent No.2 shall decide the
said proceedings expeditiously and preferably
within four (4) months from the date of

¶55

appearance.

¶56

(c)Rule accordingly made absolute in above

¶57

terms.

¶58

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶59

asp/office/wp8311.13

Madhav Venkatrao Munde and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Venkatrao Munde and Others 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

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another Vs Sandeep Asaram Wagh

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others Vs Vijay Gulabrao Patil and Others

Pradip Shridharrao Patil Vs Shivraj Limbraj Sangve and Others

Shankar Zamdeo Gadilkar Vs Pandurang Rabhaji Gadilkar and Others

Kasamkhan Gulabkhan Pathan and Others Vs Vasant Haribhau Kulkarni and Others

Pradeep Vishwanath Waghmare Vs Provincial Superior of Vimala Province