Special Recovery Officer Lokseva Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Prafulla Subhashchandra Kothari and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Nov 2025WP/4388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), Writ Petition Nos. 4374 and 4388 of 2025, decided 04-12-2025 — Special Recovery Officer, Lokseva Sahakari Bank Limited v. Prafulla Subhashchandra Kothari: communication by Special Recovery Officer to Revenue Officer under S. 149 MLRC for entry of encumbrance following attachment under Rule 107(11), Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules 1961, is a mere intimation/application, not an order under S. 154, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960; revision against it not maintainable; revisional authority acted without jurisdiction; rule made absolute per prayer clause (b).

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in both the writ petitions; no costs. ¶¶30

Special Recovery Officer Lokseva Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. vs Prafulla Subhashchandra Kothari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in both the writ petitions; no costs.

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the communication issued by the Special Recovery Officer to the Revenue Officer under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, amounts to an 'order' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, such that it is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

The communication addressed by the Special Recovery Officer to the Revenue Officer under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, merely brought the fact of the attachment (made under sub-rule (11) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961) to the notice of the Revenue Officer; it adjudicated no dispute and determined no rights, does not carry the colour of a quasi-judicial order, and lacks the essential features of a decision or order contemplated by Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — it is only an intimation.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

At the highest, the communication can be described as an application placed before the Revenue Authorities; the discretion to examine the request and decide whether any entry should be made lies with the authorities functioning under the MLRC, and the communication does not bind them — it only sets the process in motion.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

Since the communication is not an order within the meaning of the Act, the revision before the revisional authority could not stand; the revision was not maintainable at its inception, the revisional authority assumed jurisdiction where none existed, and it acted without jurisdiction in interfering with the communication.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — S. 154 — Revisional jurisdiction — Maintainability — Communication by Special Recovery Officer to Revenue Officer under S. 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, seeking entry of encumbrance in the revenue record pursuant to attachment under sub-rule (11) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 — Held: such communication adjudicates no dispute and determines no rights; it does not carry the colour of a quasi-judicial order and lacks the essential features of a decision or order contemplated by S. 154; it is a mere intimation and, at highest, an application before the Revenue Authorities, which does not bind them — Revision against such a communication was not maintainable at its inception; the revisional authority assumed jurisdiction where none existed and acted without jurisdiction in setting the communication aside — Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in both writ petitions; no costs. (Paras 4-6)

¶1

51-wp4374-2025 with wp4388-2025.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4374 OF 2025 WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4388 OF 2025

¶6

Special Recovery Officer, Lokseva Sahakari Bank Limited & Anr. … Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Prafulla Subhashchandra Kothari & Ors. … Respondents

ATUL

GANESH

KULKARNI

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.12.04 18:12:04 +0530

¶13

Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye with Ms. Gauri Velankar for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. Joel D’Souza with Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for respondent No.1.

¶15

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional G.P. with Mr. Hamid D. Mulla, AGP for respondent No.2-State

¶16

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶17

DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2025

¶18

P.C.:

¶19

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶20

These petitions question the legality of a communication issued by the Special Recovery Officer. The communication was sent in continuation of an attachment made under sub rule 11 of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The nature of the communication and the authority under which it was issued must be examined with care. The Court must see whether such communication has the character of an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction. The inquiry is limited yet

¶21

¶22

51-wp4374-2025 with wp4388-2025.doc

¶23

important. It concerns the scope of powers vested in the Recovery Officer under the Rules and the circumstances in which supervisory intervention is justified.

¶24

The contesting respondent alleges that the very disbursement of the loan is in dispute. Civil and statutory proceedings questioning the attachment are pending. A stay against the attachment and execution operates. In this background, the revisional authority has interfered and has set aside what it treated as an order of the Special Recovery Officer. The submissions of the respondent highlight the pendency of proceedings but do not resolve the fundamental issue. The Court must determine whether the communication in question amounts to an order within the meaning of the Act. Unless the document bears the attributes of an order, revisional jurisdiction does not arise.

¶25

The record shows that the Special Recovery Officer addressed a communication to the Revenue Officer under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He requested an entry of encumbrance in the revenue record to reflect the attachment made by him under sub rule 11 of Rule 107. He did not adjudicate any dispute. He did not determine any rights. He merely brought the fact of attachment to the notice of the Revenue Officer for necessary steps under the MLRC. Such a communication does not carry the colour of a quasi judicial order. It lacks the essential features of a decision or an order contemplated by Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is only an intimation. At the highest, it can

¶26

¶27

51-wp4374-2025 with wp4388-2025.doc

¶28

be described as an application placed before the Revenue Authorities. The Revenue Authorities must then consider the request, examine the rights asserted, and decide whether any entry should be made. The discretion lies with the authorities functioning under the MLRC. The communication does not bind them. It only sets the process in motion.

¶29

Once it is clear that the communication is not an order within the meaning of the Act, the revision before the revisional authority could not stand. The revisional authority assumed jurisdiction where none existed. It proceeded on an incorrect premise that the communication of the Special Recovery Officer was an order capable of being set aside. Such approach defeats the scheme of the Act. The revision was not maintainable at its inception. The revisional authority therefore acted without jurisdiction in interfering with the communication. The impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶30

Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) in both the writ petitions.

¶31

No costs.

¶32

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶33

Special Recovery Officer Lokseva Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Prafulla Subhashchandra Kothari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Special Recovery Officer Lokseva Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Prafulla Subhashchandra Kothari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilnavaz Sam Variava vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Socieities Mumbai Division and Ors.

Walkeshwar Triveni Chs Ltd. vs Kirit Purshotam Kapadia

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

Ad Films Valas and Anr. vs Sharad Mirashi

Krantikari Kamgar Union vs Vasudev B Prabhu

Sankalp Nagari Association of Apartment through Its vs Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Magaswargiy Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr.