vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1955 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1955 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1955 OF 2008 Salim Akbar Kokni ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2008 Sharjeel Akbar Kokni ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents a/w WRIT PETITION NO.1957 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1957 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1957 OF 2008 Tehseen Jilani Kokni ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents and WRIT PETITION NO.1958 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1958 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1958 OF 2008 Jilani Akbar Kokni ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents and WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2008 Tahsera Jilani Kokni ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Ms.Mamta Sadh i/b Joseph Fernandes for Petitioners Mr.Asif Patel, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 Mr.M.M. Sathaye for Resp. Nos.4 and 5 : 2 : CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 17, 2008 OCTOBER 17, 2008 OCTOBER 17, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, cooperative Societies in Revision Application Nos.R-7 of 2008, R-8 of 2008, R-9 of 2008, R-10 of 2008 and R-11 of 2008. By a common order, the Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed the revision applications and confirmed the recovery certificates issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik u/s 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 2. Prior to filing this petition, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition Nos.4235 of 2005, 4243 of 2005, 4244 of 2005, 4245 of 2005 and 4246 of 2005 in which they had challenged the direction issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar for depositing 50% of the amount due under the recovery certificate while filing the revision applications were heard. The petitioners and the respondent bank signed consent terms on 20.10.2005 under which the parties agreed that a Court Commissioner should be appointed who would submit his report to this Court, calculating the outstanding loan amount due and payable by the petitioners to the bank. : 3 : The consent terms also provided that the report of the Court Commissioner would be binding on both the parties. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner would be binding on both the parties. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner has submitted his report. Certain amounts had been paid by the petitioners from time to time and today there is an amount of Rs.18,78,399/- which is outstanding, according to the statement submitted by the bank out of the amount quantified by the Court Commissioner. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit this amount of Rs.18,78,399/- within six weeks from today. She, however, submits that all the properties of the petitioners which are attached and kept with the Bank, today as, security should be released. 4. Mr.Sathaye, appearing for the Bank, submits that the petitioners have challenged the Court Commissioner’s report by filing Writ Petition Nos.365/2006, 366/2006, 367/2006, 368/2006 & 369/2006. He submits that the petitioners cannot blow hot and cold by stating in those petitions that they wish to challenge the report while in this petition they contend that they are accepting the report. He submits that those writ petitions have already been disposed of. According to the learned advocate, this is yet another round of litigation : 4 : indulged in by the petitioners to delay paying the Bank’s dues. 5. A perusal of the consent terms filed in writ petition No.4235 of 2005 and other writ petitions indicates that the parties have agreed that the Court Commissioner’s report would be binding on both the parties. Ms.Sadh, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners will accept the Court Commissioner’s report and will withdraw those petitions and put at rest the challenge to the Court Commissioner’s report in the event the petitions are still pending. 6. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice: i) The petitioners shall deposit with the Bank Rs.18,78,500/- within six weeks from today. ii) If such amount is deposited, the bank shall release all properties of the petitioners which continue to be secured with them as of today. iii) The petitioners shall withdraw the writ petition Nos.365 of 2006, 366 of 2006, 367 of 2006, 368 of 2006 and 369 of 2006 if not already : 5 : disposed of. These petitions shall be listed before this Court for withdrawal on Tuesday, the 21st October, 2008. In the event these petitions are already disposed of, then they need not be listed before this Court. iv) By an order dated 18.7.2008, the respondent bank was permitted to withdraw Rs.24 lakhs deposited by the petitioner in this Court subject to the result of this petition. This amount, therefore, can be adjusted by the Bank towards the outstanding loan payable by the petitioners. 7. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.