-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 301 of 2008 1. Bassein Catholic Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another ..Petitioners vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Dr.Y.R.Naik i/b Shri Prashant Naik for petitioners. Smt.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri S.U.Borkar with Shri C.S.Kerkera for respondent no.4. Smt.Pooja Agarwal for respoindent nos. 5 and 6. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 23rd January, 2008 23rd January, 2008 23rd January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner Cooperative Bank had advanced the loan to respondent no.4. Respondent no. 4, its Directors and Guarantors are the members and share holders of petitioner no. 1 Bank. Respondent No.6 is the auction purchaser. 3. The petitioners’ case is that a loan/finance facility wasavailed of after it was secured by the mortgage of land and building and by -2- hypothecation of plant and machinery of respondent no.4 so also the flat belonging to one Navinchandra Doshi, Director of respondent no.4. There was a default committed and hence recovery proceedings were initiated. Four recovery certificates were granted on 2nd February, 2006 by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vasai Taluka, Thane District enabling the petitioner no. 1 to recover from respondent no.4, its directors and guarantors the aggregate sum of Rs.1,18,38,252/- Demand notices were issued and finding no response thereto, ultimately, attachment was levied on the land and building belonging to respondent no.4. The possession was taken and thereafter auction/sale notice was issued. The bids were received and bid of Respondent no.5 for Rs.80.51 lacs was accepted. It is the case of the petitioner that the sale deed was executed by petitioner no.1 in favour of respondent no.5 which is registered with the Sub Registrar , Palghar. On 5th March, 2007 possession of the land and building was handed over to respondent no.5. 4. The petitioners’ grievance is that revision application was preferred by respondent no.4 challenging the sale certificate. It appears -3- that revision was time barred but the delay came to be condoned. In execution of the Recovery Certificate on 23rd November, 2007, the petitioners attached the bank account of Navinchandra Doshi, one of the Directors of Respondent no.4. The Bank account was with Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. The grievance further is that in the revision application challenging the sale certificate, Navinchandra Doshi made an interim application on 28th November, 2007 and applied for raising the attachment of his Bank account. That attachment has been raised by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 12th December, 2007. He does not dispose of the revision application but directs raising of the attachment of the bank account. 5. The submission of Shri Naik appearing for the petitioners is that in the revision application of the borrower challenging the sale certificate, no such direction could have been issued. Issuance of such a direction is exfacie erroneous and illegal. 6. The revisional applicant in the revision application/respondent no. 4 is served and the learned Counsel appearing for him found it -4- difficult to support the impugned order in sofar as it raises the attachment. He could not dispute that the remedy of the said Navinchandra Doshi was to apply to subject Recovery Officer for raising the attachment and if that relief is not granted he could have approached the Divisional Joint Registrar in revision independently. 7. In my view, there is much substance in the contention of Shri Naik. The remedy of the subject Director Navinchandra Doshi was not to apply in the revision application challenging the sale certificate. That was a revision application by the borrowers. Navinchandra Doshi was not even party to the same. In such circumstances, for the relief personal to him, he should have approached the subject Recovery Officer. That liberty is always available and he can approach the Subject Recovery Officer even now. 8. In such circumstances, the order under challenge to the extent it raises the attachment on the bank account of Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd., details of which are set out in the impugned order, shall stand quashed and set -5- aside with liberty as above to the said Shri Navinchandra Doshi. The petitioners shall not proceed against the said Shri Navinchandra Doshi for a period of two weeks to enable him to avail of the remedy of approaching the subject Recovery Officer. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. 9. The Divisional Joint Registrar is directed to hear and dispose of the main revision application as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today. Needless to clarify that petitioner no.1 Bank can proceed with the execution of recovery certificate against the guarantors who are not parties to the revision application in accordance with law and recover the amount in accordance with law. 10. Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)