Quashed

Nadeorao Shankarrao Chavan and Anr. v. Special Recovery Officer, Rendal S.Bank Ltd. andORS.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2024WP/1456/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order dismissing a revision petition as the bank had received the recoverable dues. It directed the body to dispose of the revision on merits after hearing the new petitioners, who transposed the suit.

What did the court decide?

Consequential steps under Rule 107 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 are set aside. Revision application to be decided on merits after hearing. Petition disposed of.

Nadeorao Shankarrao Chavan and Anr. Vs Special Recovery… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1-wp-1456-2004.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1456 OF 2004

¶5

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

¶6

Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.02.15 10:30:36 +0530

¶7

Nadeorao Shankarrao Chavan and Anr.… Petitioners
V/s.

¶8

Special Recovery Officer Rendal
Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.… Respondents

¶9

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State-Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.

¶10

Ms. Pavitra Manesh i/b Mr. Meelan S. Topkar for
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶11

Mr. Manoj M. Sabale a/w Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶13

DATED:FEBRUARY 14, 2024

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1.The petitioners-purchasers of the property from borrower
who obtained loan from Respondent No.2 is challenging order
passed by Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing Revision
Application on the ground of non-compliance of Section 154(2)(a)
of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

¶16

2.The Assistant Registrar by order dated 18th September 2002
issued a certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 directing Respondent No.6 and

¶17

¶18

1-wp-1456-2004.doc

¶19

other two persons to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with
the interest at the rate of 19%per annum from 1st July 2002, till
its realization.

¶20

3.The borrower aggrieved by the said order, filed revision
application before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶21

4.During the pendency of the revision application, the
Divisional Joint Registrar on 22nd April 2003, directed bank to
issue no objection certificate to the borrower to sale the mortgage
on receipt of entire due of Rs.11,04,000/-.

¶22

5.The borrower on 23rd April 2003, filed an application before
the Divisional Joint Registrar pointing out that the bank refused to
issue no objection certificate despite borrower’s readiness of
payment of Rs.11,04,000/- by demand draft No.419112, dated
23rd April 2003. The Divisional Joint Registrar on 9th June 2003,
directed bank to furnish no objection certificate on receipt of
remaining dues of Rs.2,50,000/-. The receipt issued by the bank
dated 23rd June 2003 and 28th June 2003, indicates that entire
dues have been paid.

¶23

6.In the mean time, it appears that the borrower executed
registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners, in relation to
property mortgaged to the bank.

¶24

7.It appears from the Roznama dated 17th December 2003, that
the Divisional Joint Registrar rejected borrower’s revision on the
ground that borrower failed to comply with the provisions of
Section 154(2)(a) of the Act.

¶25

¶26

1-wp-1456-2004.doc

¶27

8.Mr. Venegavkar, learned counsel for the bank, states that he
has no instruction in the present matter.

¶28

9.However, considering the facts referred above, it appears
that the bank before the impugned order received amount of
recoverable dues of Rs. 11,04,000/- as mentioned in the
certificate. Therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶29

10. Since, the petitioners are the purchasers of the property, in
view of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated
19th March 2003, the petitioners are permitted to be transposed by
revision applicant.

¶30

11. The necessary amendment in the revision application to be
carried out within six weeks from today.

¶31

12. The revisional authority shall decide the revision application
on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
the bank.

¶32

13. In view of payment of amount, all consequential steps under
Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960 are
quashed and set aside.

¶33

14. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶34

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶35

Nadeorao Shankarrao Chavan and Anr. v. Special Recovery Officer, Rendal S.Bank Ltd. andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeorao Shankarrao Chavan and Anr. v. Special Recovery Officer, Rendal S.Bank Ltd. andORS.

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

Janaseva Sahakari Bank (Borivali) Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janaseva Sahakari Bank (Borivali) Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Namdeo Bapu Metkari Decd Thru Lrs Vs Ambubai Maruti Jadhav and Ors.

M/S. Mukesh Mehta (Huf) Thr. Karta Mukesh M Mehta vs Mrs. Champa Malde and Ors.

Ravindra S Sawant and Anr. vs Status Construction Ptd. Ltd. and Ors.

Dharmesh Mulji Solanki and Ors. Vs Ld Assistant Registrar Co-Op Societies E Ward Bharuka Chritable Trust and Ors.