1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9516 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9516 OF 2010 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Salunke with advocate Mr. Katariya for the Petitioner and Advocate Mr. Shendurnikar for the Respondent No.1. 2. The recovery Award passed under section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by Cooperative Court is accepted by borrower and one guarantor. Remaining guarantor has approached this Court in present writ petition. His grievance is, there was no resolution passed by society for institution of proceedings under section 91 of 1960 Act, the documents on the basis of which recovery is ordered have not been proved in accordance with law and third, section 98 of 1960 Act specifically permits recourse to or implementation of orders passed by Cooperative Court either as a decree of civil Court or then through the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9516 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. machinery prescribed under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. 3. Shri Shendurnikar has supported the orders. He has contended that necessary witnesses are examined and thereafter the Cooperative Court as also Cooperative Appellate Court have concurrently answered the issues in favour of present Respondent No.1 creditor. He further contends that Respondent No.1/ creditor is not effecting double recovery from the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has not entered the witness box and his denial before the Cooperative Court was simple denial. He has cross examined the witness of Respondent No. 1/ creditor only in that respect. The witness has proved documents on the basis of office records. The Cooperative Court as also Appellate Court have accepted the same. In this situation, contention that there was 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9516 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. no resolution passed by Cooperative Society for institution of such proceedings or then the documents are not proved, is without any substance. It is not the case of the petitioner that no loan was borrowed by Respondent No.2 or then he was not a guarantor. He could have entered the witness box and deposed accordingly and offered himself for cross examination. He has avoided it. 5. Section 98 of 1960 Act no doubt permits recourse to either civil Court or then to the machinery prescribed under the Act for recovery of amount as land revenue. Here, the Respondent No.1 bank initially obtained a certificate and approached Civil Court for recovery of that amount by executing the decree. Lateron, it has taken recourse to the proceedings under Rule 107 of 1961 Rules. The section itself uses word "or" and, therefore, it gives option to the Respondent 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9516 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. No.1 to recover the amount in any of the ways and means available to it. Here, it has not been shown that the Respondent No.1 is effecting double recovery. The provision for execution is to secure speedy recovery of its outstanding by cooperative society and not to put fetters upon its rights in the matter. Hence, recourse to recovery under Rule 107 which is found expeditious by society can not be objected to on such grounds. How because of notice dated 1st October, 2010 any of legal rights of present petitioner are prejudiced are also not being demonstrated. I do not see any case being made out. Petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:03/05/2011. ans/9516