Dismissed¶5

Gopi Rajesh Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2025WP/7824/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act s.101 recovery certificate against surety; auction under Rule 107 sub-rule (11), Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules 1961; limited judicial interference absent jurisdictional flaw; surety's property liable after certificate; liability crystallisation; post-certificate intra-family transfer to sons; presumption of defeating recovery; imminent attachment; bona fide transferee must show consideration and absence of notice; writ petitions dismissed; Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Amit Borkar, J.; decided 17 November 2025; WP 7824 of 2025 and WP 13944 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ petitions dismissed for want of merit and disposed of. ¶5

Gopi Rajesh Gupta vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both writ petitions dismissed for want of merit and disposed of.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the auction/recovery process invoked by the creditor under Rule 107(11) suffered from any jurisdictional flaw warranting the Court's interference. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

Interference with the Rule 107 auction is limited to jurisdictional flaws; once the creditor proceeds under Rule 107 the process attains finality, and the record discloses no such flaw.

¶1

Ratio / Principle

A surety binds himself to secure repayment and his property becomes liable for the dues in case of default; once the Section 101 certificate is issued the liability crystallises and the authority is empowered to proceed against the assets of the surety.

¶2

Key takeaways

The post-certificate transfer to the sons was not bona fide: consideration and absence of notice of the claim were not established on record, and the timing of the transfer raised a clear presumption that the property was moved to defeat recovery with attachment imminent; the law does not permit a debtor or surety to frustrate statutory proceedings by intra-family transfers made after issuance of the certificate.ratio¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.) dismisses two writ petitions questioning an auction by the creditor under Sub-Rule 11 of Rule 107, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, in recovery proceedings founded on a Section 101 certificate, Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, against the petitioners' father as surety. Held: (i) scope of interference is confined to jurisdictional flaws; once the creditor proceeds under Rule 107 the process attains finality and no such flaw exists on record; (ii) a surety binds himself to secure repayment, his property becomes liable on default, and upon issuance of the Section 101 certificate the liability crystallises, empowering the authority to proceed against the surety's assets; (iii) the transfer of the property to the sons after issuance of the certificate fails the test of good faith — consideration and absence of notice are not established, and its timing raises a clear presumption that it was made to defeat imminent recovery/attachment — such intra-family post-certificate transfers cannot be treated as bona fide. Petitions found devoid of merit, dismissed and disposed of (17 November 2025).

¶1

39&65-wp-7824 & 13944-25

¶2

1 of 3

¶3

Gokhale

¶4

IN THE HIGH CwOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7824 OF 2025 WITH

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13944 OF 2025

¶7

Gopi Rajesh Gupta ..Petitioner

¶8

Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Abhishek Avachat a/w. Siddhant Deshpande a/w. Indrajeet Jagdale for Petitioner in both petitions.

¶10

Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for State/Respondent No.1 in WP/7824/25.

¶11

Mr. J. P. Patel, AGP for State/Respondent No.1 in WP/13944/25.

¶12

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 17 NOVEMBER 2025

¶13

PC :

¶14

Both petitions question the auction conducted by the creditor under Sub Rule 11 of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The scope of interference is limited. The Court must examine whether the authority acted within its jurisdiction and whether the material facts justify invocation of the recovery machinery. Once the creditor proceeds under Rule 107, the process attains finality unless the action suffers from a jurisdictional flaw. The record does not show any such flaw.

¶15

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.17 18:55:19 +0530

¶16

2 of 3 39&65-wp-7824 & 13944-25

¶17

The petitioners do not dispute that their father stood surety for the loan which forms the basis of the demand raised under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. This admission carries weight. A surety binds himself to secure repayment. His property becomes liable for the dues in case of default. Once the certificate is issued, the liability attains crystallisation. The authority is empowered to proceed against the assets of the surety.

¶18

The petitioners also do not dispute that the certificate under Section 101 was issued against the father. The transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners was made after issuance of the certificate. Such transfer requires close scrutiny. A transferee who claims good faith must show consideration and absence of notice of the claim. The material placed on record does not establish these elements. The timing of the transfer raises a clear presumption that the property was moved to the hands of the sons to defeat recovery. The father continued to face liability as a surety. The attachment was imminent. In such circumstances, the transfer cannot be treated as bona fide. The law does not permit a debtor or surety to frustrate statutory proceedings by resorting to intra family transfers made after issuance of the certificate.

¶19

In view of these findings, there is no merit in the petitions.

¶20

The petitions are therefore dismissed.

¶21

39&65-wp-7824 & 13944-25

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

Both the petitions are disposed of.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Gopi Rajesh Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Rajesh Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Janta Housing Private Limited vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Rohit Milind Tambe vs Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies R S Ward Mumbai

Salman Khalil Mulla and Ors. vs the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Socities and Ors.

Ragvilas Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. Thr Its Chairman and Secretary vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Vaishali v. Rane vs the State of Maharashtra through Its and Anr.

Prakash Ramchandra Munankar vs M/S Ornet Blossom Co-Op Hsg Td Throu. Its Chairman / Secretary and Anr.