ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2008 Suhas Pandurang Mantri ...Petitioner Vs. Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd.& Ors....Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Ms.Aparna Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Mr.S.B.Khurjekar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 1st August, 2008 : 1st August, 2008 : 1st August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges legality and validity of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in his Revision Application, filed under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act-1960 (hereinafter referred to as "said Act"). That the certificate under Section 101 was issued against Respondent No.5 and the Petitioner. This certificate was challenged by filing the Revision Application before the Joint Registrar. However, the Revision ( 2 ) came to be dismissed for non compliance of the mandatory provisions under Section 154(2A) of the said Act. As stated above this order is impugned in the present petition. The Petitioner also challenges the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 154 (2A) of the said Act. 3. The constitutional validity of Section 154 (2A) is already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Kausalya Kausalya Kausalya Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors. Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors. Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors. reported reported reported in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 651 in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 651 in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 651. The contention of Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that Division Bench while upholding Constitutional Validity of Section 154 (2A) has not considered the Apex Court Judgment of Mardia Chemicals Mardia Chemicals Mardia Chemicals Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) 530, 530, 530, in proper prospective. He invited my attention towards observations made in paragraph No.14 of the Division Bench Judgment and submitted that the Division Bench did not consider the ratio of Apex Court decision in Mardia Chemicals Mardia Chemicals Mardia Chemicals on the premise, that the proceedings in that case were not appellate or revisional but the same were original. He further submits that in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial ( 3 ) Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act-2002 the proceedings are Appellate proceedings. 4. Mr.Govilkar the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act-2002 was amended on 11/11/2004 by an Act 41 of 2000 thereby added sub Section (3A) in Section 13. He further submits that this addition was made after decision of Apex Court in Mardia Mardia Mardia Chemicals (supra). Chemicals (supra). Chemicals (supra). 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge to the Constitutional validity of Section 154 (2A) of the said Act. The Division Bench of this Court in Kausalya Sampat (supra) Kausalya Sampat (supra) Kausalya Sampat (supra). While upholding the Constitutional validity of Section 154 (2A) of said Act observed that Mardia Chemicals (supra) Mardia Chemicals (supra) Mardia Chemicals (supra) Judgment of Apex Court is not applicable inasmuch as the said case was not appellate or revisional proceedings but were original proceedings. The ratio of the Division Bench Judgment binds this Court and the Single Judge cannot take a view contrary to the Division Bench. Be that as it may. The Division Bench for upholding the ( 4 ) Constitutional validity of provisions of Section 154 (2A) of said Act considered and relied upon following Apex Court Judgments. 1. Anant Anant Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujrat, Gujrat, Gujrat, 1975(2) S.C.C.175. 1975(2) S.C.C.175. 1975(2) S.C.C.175. 2. Seth Seth Seth Nand Lal Vs. State of Haryana, Nand Lal Vs. State of Haryana, Nand Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 1980 1980 1980 (supp.) S.C.C.574. (supp.) S.C.C.574. (supp.) S.C.C.574. 3. Vijay Vijay Vijay Prakash D. Mehta Vs. Collector Prakash D. Mehta Vs. Collector Prakash D. Mehta Vs. Collector of of of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, 1988 Customs (Preventive), Bombay, 1988 Customs (Preventive), Bombay, 1988 (4) (4) (4) Bom. C.R.91. Bom. C.R.91. Bom. C.R.91. 4. Shyam Shyam Shyam Kishor & Ors. Vs. Municipal Kishor & Ors. Vs. Municipal Kishor & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation Corporation Corporation of Delhi & Anr., 1993 (1) of Delhi & Anr., 1993 (1) of Delhi & Anr., 1993 (1) S.C.C. S.C.C. S.C.C. 22. 22. 22. 5. State State State of Tripura Vs. Manoranjan of Tripura Vs. Manoranjan of Tripura Vs. Manoranjan Chakraborty Chakraborty Chakraborty & Ors., 2001(10) S.C.C. & Ors., 2001(10) S.C.C. & Ors., 2001(10) S.C.C. 740. 740. 740. 6. The Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph No.15 also held that the absence of power in Section 154 (2A) of said Act, to dispense with the deposit by ( 5 ) Revisionary Authority, does not make provision arbitrary or discriminatory, especially when the Section itself provides for uniform dispensing of 50% of the amount already adjudicated as dues by the lower authority. 7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I cannot entertain the challenge to constitutional validity of Section 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act-1960. 8. Since challenge to constitutional validity to Section 154 (2A) is not entertained, no reason to interfere in the impugned order as the same is passed in pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 154 (2A) of the said Act. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)