ssp 1 WP 974 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.974 of 2011 Rajarambapu Sahakari Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner versus M/s.Nirantan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 Rajarambapu Sahakari Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner versus M/s.Nirantan Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingale, for the petitioners. Mr.Anand Kaswa i/by Mr.Sushil Nimbalkar, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the petitions. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.R.Ganbawale i/by Mr.S.S.Kanetkar, for respondent No.4 in WP No.974 of 2011. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.R.Ganbawale i/by Mr.S.S.Kanetkar, for respondent No.4 in WP No.973 of 2011. Mr.R..M.Patne, AGP, for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in both the petitions. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATE: 4th MAY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Ingale for the petitioner in both the petitions, Mr.Sakhare and Mr.Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for ssp 2 WP 974 of 2011 respondent No.4 respectively in each of the petition. Since point involved and the parties to the petitions are the same, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both these petitions pertain to the proceedings under Section 101 of the Co­operative Societies Act, 1960. Petitioner is a Co­ operative Bank. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the original borrowers and respondent No.5 is a guarantor. This fact is however, denied by the respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner Bank initiated recovery proceedings before respondent No.8 Deputy Registrar, against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for recovery of loan amount. Respondent No.8 accordingly granted recovery certificate to the petitioner bank. However, said certificate was granted only against respondent Nos.1 to 3. Petitioners contend that the notices were issued against respondent Nos.1 to 5 by the respondent No.8 and all of them have participated in the proceedings. The copy of certificate issued to the petitioners under Section 101 of the Act, disclosed that the same is issued against respondent Nos.1 to 5. Nevertheless, it is the fact that the office copy of the certificate under Section 101 of the Act, shows that the same has been issued only against respondent Nos.1 to 3. The contention of Mr.Sakhare and Mr.Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel is that it was not issued as against their client i.e. respondent No.4. ssp 3 WP 974 of 2011 4. The petitioner bank vide letter dated 25/30­03­2010, attached the accounts of respondent No.4 which is opened in the petitioner’s bank. The petitioner bank in view of the alleged inadvertent mistake, made an application to respondent No.6 for correction of the same. The said application was however, rejected on the ground that respondent No.6 has no power to correct the inadvertent mistake committed by respondent No.8, his predecessor­in­title, while granting certificate under Section 101 of the Act. The petitioner bank challenged the said order of respondent No.6 before the Joint Registrar under Section 154 of the Act. The respondent No.4 also challenged the petitioner’s letter dated 25/30­03­2010 by filing a revision under section 154 of the said Act. Both these revisions are disposed of by the respondent No.7 – Joint Registrar. Revision filed by the petitioner was rejected and that of respondent No.4 was allowed and that is why petitioner’s bank is before this Court by filing two separate proceedings. 5. Mr.Ingale, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 is principal borrower along with respondent Nos.1 to 3. The notices of the proceedings under Section 101 of the Act, were also issued to respondent No.4 and he participated in the said proceedings. A copy of the certificate received by the petitioner bank also shows that the same is issued against respondent Nos.1 to 5. However, inadvertently, in ssp 4 WP 974 of 2011 office copy it is shown to have been issued only against respondent Nos.1 to 3. He submitted that it is an arithmetical mistake and the same is required to be corrected resorting to the provisions under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Jayalakshmi Coelho V/s. Oswald Joseph Coelho, AIR 2001 SC 1084. 6. Mr.Sakhare and Mr.Jahagirdar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4, on the contrary supported the impugned order by submitting that the Registrar is not a Court and he has no power to correct an arithmetical mistake committed in a certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act. They submitted that the copy of the certificate issued under Section 101 obtained by the respondent No.4 disclosed that the same is issued against respondent Nos.1 to 3 only. In the circumstances, the bank could not have attached the accounts of respondent No.4. They prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the annexures to the petitions, I find no merit in the petitions. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the office copy/original copy of the certificate under Section 101 of the Act, shows that the same is issued only against respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a copy issued to the petitioner bank, which shows that the same is issued ssp 5 WP 974 of 2011 against respondent Nos.1 to 5. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that it is clearly an interpolation and the same should not be relied upon. In this circumstances, I proceed on the basis of the original certificate issued by the respondent No.8 Deputy Registrar, which shows that the same is issued against respondent Nos.1 to 3 only. 8. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on which learned counsel for the petitioner kept reliance, provides correction of clerical and/or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decree and orde by court. The respondent No.8 Deputy Registrar, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as the “Court” and therefore, the powers under Section 152 of the Code, cannot be exercised by the Deputy Registrar of the Co­operative Societies. Reliance of Mr.Ingale, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Jayalakshni Coelho (Supra), is misplaced. The matter before the Apex Court arose out of the proceedings of the Family Court. In Para No. 16 of the said Judgment, the Apex Court observed that “inherent powers would generally be available to all Courts and authorities irrespective of the fact whether the provisions contained under Section 152, CPC may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding”. The Apex Court made this observation in the context of the proceedings arose before it. As ssp 6 WP 974 of 2011 stated above, this proceeding arose from the order of the Family Court. In the above circumstances, petitioner’s remedy is only to challenge the original order of the Deputy Registrar under Section 154 of the Co­ operative Societies Act, or in the alternative to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 101 of the Act against respondent No.4. 9. Mr. Ingale, faced with this difficulty, made a statement that the petitioners will approach revisional authority against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 154 of the Act for non­issuance of certificate under Section 101 against them. 10. So far as the letter of the petitioner dated 25­03­2010/30­03­2010 attaching the accounts of respondent No.4 is concerned, the revisional authority has quashed and set aside the said letter. I do not find any fault in the order of the revisional authority in as much as without there being any certificate, the accounts of respondent No.4 could not have been attached. In the circumstances, both the writ petitions are dismissed by passing the following order. (a) The petitioner is at liberty to apply to the revisional authority under Section 154 for modification of the certificate dated 25­08­2004 issued under Section 101 of the Act. If the said application is preferred by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the revisional authority shall decide the same on its own merits within a period of eight ssp 7 WP 974 of 2011 weeks thereafter. All the contentions of the parties are expressly kept open to be agitated before the revisional authority. ( RANJIT MORE, J. )