Disposed

Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2021WP/5295/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of writ petition challenging rejection of revision application for non-compliance with Section 154(2A) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Held petitioners should urge adjustment-based pre-deposit contention before Divisional Joint Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to raise adjustment of recoveries as ground for reduced pre-deposit before Divisional Joint Registrar. Costs denied.

Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare and Anr. Vs the State of… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT VILAS VILAS RANE RANE Date: 2021.09.09 21:27:17 +0530

¶2

9-wp 5295-21.doc

¶3

Prajakta Vartak

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5295 OF 2021

¶6

Shri.Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare & Anr....Petitioners
V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.Vaibhav Ugle for the Petitioners.
Mr.C.D. Mali, AGP for the State.

¶10

C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶11

DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2021

¶12

PC :

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the

¶14

State. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are the contesting respondents, however, they

¶15

are not appearing as notice of this petition was not served on them. Be that
as it may, in my opinion, no prejudice would be caused to these respondents
considering the order I propose to pass.

¶16

2.The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 15 April, 2021
passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Society, Pune
Division, Pune, whereby the revision application, as filed by the petitioners
against the recovery certificate dated 10 March, 2017 granted by the recovery
officer/respondent no.3, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners

¶17

1 / 3

¶18

9-wp 5295-21.doc

¶19

did not comply with the requirement of the pre-deposit as mandated by the
provisions of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960(for short ‘The Act’).

¶20

3.The principal contention as urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that after the issuance of the recovery certificate and before the
revision application was taken up for hearing before the Divisional Joint
Registrar Co-operative Society, Pune Division, Pune, who passed the
impugned order, there were certain recoveries which were made by
respondent no.1 which ought to have been taken into account. IT is
contended that if such recovered amounts were to be adjusted for the
purposes of the pre-deposit which would be required to be made under
Section 154(2A) of the Act, then certainly the revision application as filed by
the petitioners could have been entertained subject to the condition of pre-
deposit of a lesser amount under the provisions of Section 154(2A) of the Act.

¶21

4.In my opinion, such contention as urged by the petitioners in fact,
would be required to be urged by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint
Registrar, it cannot be a contention at the first instance before this Court. If
such contention is urged before such authority, certainly the contesting
respondents namely respondent no.2-Pune Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
would have an opportunity to deal with such contentions.

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

9-wp 5295-21.doc

¶24

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to urge all permissible contentions before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶25

6. Needless to observe that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open in such regard.

¶26

7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶27

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶28

3 / 3

Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Mohankumar Nandlal Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department and Ors.

F.N. Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Mr. L.S. Chinnappa and Anr. Vs Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd.through Its Director Mr Jayprakash Sitaram Goel and Ors.

M/S. Karia Builders Thr. Partner Vs Ms. Shobha Bhagde and Anr.

Mumbai Vidi- Tambakhu Vyapari Co-Op. Credit Soc. Ltd. (Mvtp) Vs Mrs. Bhagyashri Bhalchandra Khatu and Ors.

M/S. Santek Equipment Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar and Ors. Vs M/S. Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.