1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.425 of 2010 M/s. Satyam Automobiles ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents Mr.R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitoiner. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The Divisional Joint Registrar, while entertaining the revision petition tendered on behalf of the bank allowed the same and remitted the matter back for reconsideration to the Taluka Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. The proceeding relate to issuance of recovery certificate as contemplated under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Initially the application tendered by the respondent bank for securing certificate under section 101 was turned down by the Taluka Deputy Registrar, Aurangabad. The bank was thus constrained to present a revision application before the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. 2 2. There are 3 objections raised by the borrower for issuance of certificate. Firstly it is contended that the petitioners are stationed at Jalna and their unit is situated at Jalna, whereas, the application is tendered seeking recovery certificate to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperate societies Aurangabad. It is contended that the Deputy Registrar, Jalna shall have the jurisdiction and the authority at Aurangbaad has no jurisdiction to issue the certificate. It is pointed out that the lending bank is situated at Aurangabad and the loan was borrowed from the branch of the bank situated at Aurangabad and as such, the Taluka Deputy registrar, Aurangabad shall have jurisdiction to entertain the application. Another objection raised is in respect of the difference in the rate of interest. The issue can be raised before the competent authority and the same needs to be adjudicated while considering the application tendered by the respondent Bank for issuance of Recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Cooperative Societies Act. 3. The third objection raised in this petition is in respect of deposit of Rs.1,85,000/- by the petitioner with the respondent bank and according to the petitioner, the deposit of amount by him is not reflected in the account statement. Objection, if any in this respect , also has to be raised before the competent authority and the same shall have to be taken into account while issuing the recovery certificate. 3 4. In my opinion the approach adopted by the revisional authority is reasonable and proper and the order of remand issued by the revisional authority needs no interference. There is no substance in the petition. The same is summarily dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE grt/wp