1 mss RPW112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6718 OF 2010 M/s. MADHU GUPTA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ORS. .. APPLICANTS (Original Petitioners) Vs. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES, MUMBAI DIVISION & ORS. RESPONDENTS Ms. Bhavna A. Anklesaria for the applicants (Org. petitioners) Dr. Bipendra Saraf i/b V. Deshpande & Co. for R-5 Bank CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 17/10/2011 P.C. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the application styled as ‘review application’ seeking review of order dated 13/6/2011. It is contended on behalf of the original petitioners that the amount due and payable and which could have been 2 mss RPW112 secured at the stage of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 is the sum outstanding under the Recovery Certificate and to the extent indicated in the provision. Today what the bank has indicated to the petitioners is not the sum due under the recovery certificate but the total outstanding and, therefore, once the petitioners have paid a substantial sum as is evident by the letter annexed to the petition and review application dated 19/3/2010 that the statutory mandate is complied with. If the order does not clarify this aspect but keep it vague then the bank would recover something more than what is permissible in law and particularly when the revision application can be revived / filed in pursuance of the liberty granted by this court. 2. It is not possible to accept this contention because the whole attempt is to reopen and re-argue the case. The petitioners were fully aware of the fact that they have to pay sums under the recovery certificate as claimed by the bank. At the stage at which the matter was placed before this court virtually a concession was sought by the two ladies that if an opportunity is provided to meet the dues of the bank, even at this belated stage the coercive measures initiated by the bank would be avoided. It is in that light and since it was argued 3 mss RPW112 that there was a impending sale of certain assets and properties but in the meanwhile, the adjustments of the amounts already recovered were not shown in the accounts; that a direction needs to be issued, that too with consent of the parties that the petitioners should be provided with the requisite details. The bank has provided the requisite details as is evident from the annexures to this review application. 3. If the petitioners are aggrieved and dissatisfied with these details and seek to urge that the bank is recovering more than what is due and payable it could have been pointed out all this to the revisional authority. It is not as if the bank dues is secured in terms of Section 154(2A) of the Act that the petitioners have no opportunity to satisfy the authority about the correctness of the accounts and the entries therein. Without prejudice to all the pleas as raised in the Revision Application and this review application they can very well comply with the order and direction which, to my mind, is not vague because it is in terms of the recovery certificate in question that the outstanding sum and due and payable is computed. All that remains is to forward the exact figure after giving adjustments for such sporadic payments and the sale of certain assets in the meanwhile. 4 mss RPW112 It is in that light, to give an opportunity to the petitioners, that the order has been passed and I find nothing vague or ambiguous therein so as to either clarify the same, leave alone entertaining a Review application on the ground that the same is suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record. 4. For all these reasons there is no merit in this civil/review application and the same is dismissed. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)