:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2231 OF 2007 Associated Plasmatron Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. The Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies & ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.A. Pawar for petitioners. Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete i/by Mr. Rajesh Tekale for respondent no.2. Mr. Sameer Patil, AGP for respondent no.5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : April 24, 2008. : April 24, 2008. : April 24, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Pawar the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhadrashete the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The learned AGP appears for respondent no.1 and 5. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from the Recovery Certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar on 30/5/2003 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies :2: Act, 1960 (in short the Act) for the recovery of an amount of Rs.16,22,930/- from respondent no.4 who was the borrower. Admittedly, the petitioners were the guarantors for the said loan. The Recovery Certificate has been confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai by dismissing Revision Application No. 379 of 2004 filed under Section 154 of the Act, as per the judgment and order dated 30/12/2006. 3. It was submitted by Mr. Pawar that the bank misguided the petitioners for the sale of the mortgaged premises belonging to the borrower and in any case as per the agreement dated 29/5/2001 the borrower sold the mortgaged premises i.e. Flat No.101 in Plot No.32, Sector 5 and admeasuring about 886 sq.ft. carpet area to Shri T.K. Sharma for an amount of Rs.22,90,000/- and the entire amount under recovery could have been satisfied by the said transaction. Without resorting to such remedies against the main borrower, the bank sought to execute the Recovery Certificate against the guarantors and these important issues have not been considered by the Divisional Joint Registrar in the impugned order. It was further :3: submitted that though the loan amount was Rs.17,00,000/-, the balance unpaid amount was Rs.9,08,969/- and the interest outstanding was shown at Rs.7,04,211/- in the month of June 2001 despite the fact that the sale of the mortgaged premises had taken place on 29/5/2001. 4. So far as the petitioners offer to buy the mortgaged premises is concerned, the borrower addressed a letter on 28/12/1999 to the Bank pointing out that the guarantors of the office premises were agreeable to take over the mortgaged premises and in turn the amount of Rs.17,00,000/- would be paid by them to the Bank in 60 equal monthly instalments with quarterly interest. The petitioners further claim that on 8/2/2000 a revised proposal was submitted wherein the monthly equal instalments were reduced to 48 but the bank did not respond. The bank has claimed that the letter dated 8/2/2000 was not received by them and has further pointed out that by letter dated 5/3/2001 it had informed the borrower as well as the guarantors and other two parties that the valuation of the mortgaged property was done by the Government approved valuer and the office premises were valued at :4: Rs.11,50,000/- whereas the flat was valued for Rs.5,50,000/-. The bank accepted the said valuation and informed the borrower as well as the guarantors that the Term Loan Account in balance would be about Rs.27,00,000/- excluding interest from 1/1/2001 and its intention to sell the hypothecated property. They were also informed that all of them would be jointly and severally liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.27,00,000/- excluding interest from 1/1/2001. Despite this letter, neither the guarantors nor the borrower had taken any objection to the valuation done by the Government approved valuer. So far as the agreement dated 29/5/2001 is concerned, the bank is not a party and it is a transaction between the borrower and Mr.T.K. Sharma. 5. The Recovery Certificate dated 30/5/2003 has set out detailed reasons and dealt with all the issues raised before the Assistant Registrar. The petitioners did not take any objection before the Assistant Registrar in respect of the waiver of the conditions as alleged by them in the revision application and they did not also point out which particular conditions of the loan agreement were :5: waived. The Divisional Joint Registrar also noted that the petitioners were put to notice regarding the valuation of the mortgaged property and they did not take any steps to inform the bank that the valuation should done was either erroneous or was not accepted. 6. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to call for interference under the supervisory powers of this court. 7. Consequently, this petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)