1 wp660-3363.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.569 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.3633 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1389 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1251 OF 2010 M/s.Londhe Patil Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner (in both the petitions) vs. The Laxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd.Solapur & Ors. ...Respondents (in both the petitions) Mr.Y.S.Dharane for the petitioner in both the petitions Mr.Vishal Kanade i/b Jai Kanade for respondent Nos.1 in Writ Petition no.660/2009 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Writ Petition no.3363 of 2009 has been filed on 31 st March 2009 by the petitioner-borrower for challenging the order of attachment of the property of the petitioner in execution of the recovery certificate issued in favour of the 1 st respondent-bank under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said recovery certificate was issued on 3 rd May 2002. In Writ Petition No.3363 of 2009 there is also a challenge to the said recovery certificate. 2 Writ Petition no.660 of 2009 has been filed in 2 wp660-3363.sxw January 2009. The challenge in this petition is essentially to auction of one of the properties of the petitioner in execution of the said certificate under section 101 of the said Act. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that remedy of filing a revision application under section 156 of the said Act is not at all an efficacious remedy. He submitted that there is delay in challenging the recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act as the petitioner had submitted proposals to the 1 st respondent for one time settlement. He submitted that there is a gross illegality in the recovery certificate. He submitted that 85% of the auction price was deposited by the purchaser after expiry of period of 15 days from the date of sale. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Shilpa Shares and Securities & Others Vs. National Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2007 3 All M.R. 832), he submitted that the sale is illegal. He submitted that there are various illegalities committed during the course of sale and therefore the sale deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act was issued on 3 rd May 2002. Annexures to the petition no.3363 of 2009 show that certain proposals for settlement were submitted by the petitioner. The last of such proposals annexed to the petition is dated 27 th February 2006. As stated earlierm for challenging the recovery certificate issued on 3 rd May 2002, the petition has been filed on 31 st March 2009 which is filed after three years from the date on which the last proposal for settlement was submitted. The first notice of auction of some of the properties on the basis of 3 wp660-3363.sxw recovery certificate was published on 26 th September 2008. Notice of the auction of the other properties was published on 17 th February 2009. Thus, as far as challenge to the recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act is concerned, there is a gross unexplained delay and therefore extraordinary remedy of writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be invoked by the petitioner. Apart from the challenge to the recovery certificate, the challenge is also to the attachment of the property made on the basis of the recovery certificate. The petitioner had a substantive remedy under sub rule 19 of rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) of raising an objection to the attachment. On such objection, adjudication was required to be made. The petitioner has not availed of the said remedy under which objection to the attachment would have been considered. Therefore, Writ Petition no.3363 of 2009 cannot be entertained. 5 As far as Writ Petition no.660 of 2009 is concerned the petitioner is alleging various illegalities in the process of sale. Remedy was available under sub rules-13 and 14 of Rule 107 of the said Rules to apply for setting aside the sale. Under sub rule 14 of Rule 107 of the said Rules, there is a power vesting in the authority to set aside the sale on the ground of material illegality or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting of the auction. Time provided under sub rule 14 has already expired. The petitioner has not availed of the efficacious remedy available under the said rules for challenging the auction. In the circumstances, Writ Petition no.660 of 2009 cannot be entertained. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: 4 wp660-3363.sxw . Writ Petitions are rejected. Civil Application Nos.569 of 2010, 1389 of 2009 and 1251 of 2010 do not survive and the same are disposed of. JUDGE