1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 299 of 2011 in Writ Petition NO. 2618 of 2010 (d) M/s Jimmy Construction Pvt. Ltd. ..VERSUS.. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Shantanu S. Khedkar, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 28th JULY, 2011. Heard Mr. Khedkar, the learned counsel for the appellant. We see nothing wrong with the order passed by the respondent no.1-Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, on 22.02.2010, rejecting the revision application filed by the appellant against the issuance of recovery certificate under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and thereby confirming the recovery certificate, dated 05.02.2004. The respondent no.1 found that the notice dated 02.01.2004 was duly issued to the appellant by Registered Post AD and still the appellant remained absent at the time of hearing. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.1-Divisional Joint Registrar by the order dated 20.09.2010 and held that the case of the appellant that there were some 2 disputes between himself and the other brothers, which demonstrated that the notice of the proceedings under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 was not received by the appellant, was an after thought and was pressed into service for the first time in the additional submissions. The learned Single Judge held that the fact of advancement of loan was not in dispute and since the appellant had failed to show his bona fides by depositing some amount in the Court, there was no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the respondent no.1-Divisional Joint Registrar. It appears that the respondent no.1 had passed the order dated 22.02.2010 after perusal of the statement of account, filed by the respondent-bank. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The judgment reported in (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 281 (Grand Vasant Residents Welfare Association and another .vs. DDA and another) and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the learned Single Judge has, by the judgment in appeal dated 20.09.2010, also considered the matter on merits, though the learned Single Judge may have also observed that the appellant did not show his bona fides by deposing some amount in the Court. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale