: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7835 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7835 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7835 OF 2008 Anamari Manwel Bardeskar ... Petitioner V/s. Shengaon Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7835 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7835 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7835 OF 2008 Shengaon Urban Co-op. Credit Applicants/ Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Org.Respondents V/s. Anamari Manwel Bardeskar ... Respondent/ Org.Petitioner Mr.Amit B. Borkar for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Rajeshirke for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP, for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2009. DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that her personal property is being attached for the recovery of a loan which was issued by respondent No.1 in favour of Kistoba Bardeskar Education Society. When this loan of Rs.40 lacs was obtained on 29th February, 2000, the petitioner was the chairperson of the Education Society as well as the Respondent No.1. The loan was disbursed to the Education Society and the petitioner : 2 : created a charge under section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the MCS Act"). 2. Since the Education Society has defaulted in payment of the loan, the respondent No.1-Credit Society has sought recovery of this loan by modes available to it under the MCS Act. A recovery certificate has been issued under section 101 of the MCS Act against the respondent No.1-Credit Society. The property accordingly has been auctioned on 10th December, 2008. A sale certificate is yet to be issued. 3. The petitioner no longer is the chairperson of the respondent No.1-Credit Society but continues to be the chairperson of the Kistoba Bardeskar Education Society. 4. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 has pointed out that the petitioner has created a charge under section 48 of the MCS Act and therefore the proceedings were initiated against her property for recovery of the loan after issuance of the recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act. He points out that once a charge is created under : 3 : section 48(1) of the MCS Act, the petitioner has no right to rescind it. He further submits that under the Transfer of Properties Act also when a charge is created by a person against any loan, the creditor can recover the loan against the property on which the charge is created. Further, he submits that the petitioner is now estopped from contending that she is not liable to pay the loan or that her personal property cannot be used for recovery of the loan. 5. In my opinion, the order passed by the Divisional Authority under section 154 of the MCS Act is correct. There is no perversity in the same. The Authority below has considered the provisions of section 48 and Rule 107. He has rightly observed that since the charge was created by the petitioner, she cannot now contend that she is not liable to repay the loan from her personal property. Apart from this, as observed by the Divisional Authority, the petitioner had not taken any steps to repay the loan in order to cancel the auction as required under Rule 107(13) of the said Act. 6. The Petition is, therefore, rejected. 7. In view of the above, the Civil Application : 4 : No.194 of 2009 does not survive and the same is rejected. .....