1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 201/2011 in WRIT PETITION NO.5248/2010 (D) (Shri Anand Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. .vs. Suyash Madhukar Bhusari & another ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders S/Shri Khajanchi with P.S. Tidke, Advocates for Appellant. Shri K.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent no.1 Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for Respondent no.2. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 25, 2011 Heard respective counsel. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5248/2010 on 23.2.2011 found grievance made by the present respondent no.1 justified and, therefore, has set aside the order of Divisional Joint Registrar condoning the delay. The appellant- Cooperative Society is not challenging that part of the order. Only observation by which the communication sent by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank on 4.2.2010 has been accepted as an indication of inclination of Bank to accept the order of the Assistant Registrar impugned in that revision are questioned. Learned counsel for the appellant states that said communication cannot be construed as acquiescence in the order of Assistant Registrar. He points out that in 2 fresh proceeding under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Assistant Registrar has because of the said orders of the learned Single Judge refused to issue recovery certificate and that refusal is questioned by appellant by filing revision under Section 154 of the Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar. He, therefore, states that if legal status of that communication dated 4.2.2010 is clarified and it is left open for adjuration by Revisional Authority, the appellant will be satisfied. Advocate Shri Deshpande appearing for respondent no.1 is opposing the request. According to him, respondent no.1 has already deposited the amount of about Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lacs) with the Registry of this Court and he is not interested in further litigation. He, therefore, requests the Court to accept that payment and to stop the litigation. Learned AGP is also supporting the arguments of Advocate Shri Deshpande. In the light of arguments advanced by the appellant, it is apparent that question is whether communication dated 4.2.2010 shows any inclination or intention on part of Bank to acquiesce in the recovery certificate having no. 115/2010 issued on 2.2.2010. The fact that appellant is an artificial person ( Cooperative Society) is not in dispute. If any acquiescence or such acceptance is to be gathered on its behalf, it must be in the background of some legal provision which may appear in its bye-laws. If it is shown that the said recovery certificate no. 115/10 was looked into by competent committee or sub-committee and thereafter a decision to issue the communication dated 4.2.2010 3 was taken, it may in that event be considered to find out whether it binds the appellant-society or not. That exercise has not been gone into so far. Hence with liberty to appellant to raise appropriate contention in this respect before the Revisional Authority and direction to Revisional Authority to examine such contention in the background of provisions of bye-laws of appellant-society and requirements of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the present LPA is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai