getting credit loan of Rs.50,000/-, by scoring the figure and by doing over writing, the amount is shown as Rs.5,00,000/-. It was submitted that the amount shown to be withdrawn from that account was not actually withdrawn and so these aspects ought to have been considered by the Assistant Registrar. He placed reliance on the provision of Rule 86-E of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and observations made by Division Bench of this Court in case reported in “ Top Ten, A Partnership Firm & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, [2012(1) Mh.L.J., 347] ”. This court has carefully gone through the observations made by this court. The observations were with regard to different context and the right of the opponent to cross-examine the witness who had filed the affidavits. Observations are also made with regard to the nature of power given to Assistant Registrar, who is considering the matter of issuing certificate under Section 101 of the Act. It is observed by this Court that, the power is limited to the dispute where only the quantum of arrears is in dispute. It is observed that, when the Assistant Registrar finds that, there is another “genuine” dispute which is not covered by Section 101, then such dispute cannot be entertained and the Assistant Registrar needs to direct the parties to take the dispute before Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Act. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition. The provision shows that, it is
