KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2703 OF 2010 Shri Jitendra Kesurdas Shah ..Petitioner Vs. Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Shri Umesh R.Mankapure for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J DATE : 25/8/2010 PC 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act 1960 (Hereinafter referred to “as the said Act”). In the dispute, the declaration claimed is that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 2002”) are not applicable to the 1st respondent- bank. Further declaration is claimed that the action of recovery initiated by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the said Act of 2002 is illegal. Perpetual injunction is prayed for restraining KJ 2 the 1st respondent from proceeding further with the process of auction. A preliminary issue was framed as regards jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to entertain and try the dispute. The learned Judge of the Co-operative Court held that the Co-operative Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute in view of the provisions of the said Act of 2002. The said judgment and order of the Co-operative Court has been confirmed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. 2 The view taken by the Courts below is in conformity with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khaja Industries Vs.State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 712. which holds that the said Act of 2002 is applicable to Co- operative Banks. In view of availability of remedy under the said Act of 2002, the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court has been barred. 3 Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though the case may be covered by the decision of the Division Bench, special leave to prefer an appeal has been granted by the Apex KJ 3 Court against the decision of this Court in the case of Khaja Industries. He has produced on record, a copy of the order passed by the Apex Court. 4 So long as the decision of this Court is not set aside by the Apex Court, it continues to bind this Court. Therefore, it is not open for this Court to take a different view. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (JUDGE)