1 21.22wp8072.8073.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8072 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8073 OF 2011 F.C.I. Chaturth Shreni Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit. ....Petitioner Vs. Rupee Corporation Bank Ltd. & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Mohit Bhansali, Advocate for Petitioner in both the Petitions. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in both the Petitions. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 16, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Bhansali, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. Proceedings under section 101 are still pending. Initially a prayer for leading oral evidence was made which was rejected and that order has been confirmed by Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J by order dated 22/7/2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 3414 of 2001. 2 21.22wp8072.8073.11 Thereafter, Writ Petition Nos. 7772, 7773 and 7774 of 2009 were filed again challenging the proceedings. Learned Single Judge (R.V. More, J) by judgment and order dated 16 th April, 2010 has rejected the Petitions. Thereafter, third attempt was made to stall the enquiry by filing application for preliminary issue. If it is contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner is a member of the Respondent Bank, initial burden to prove such membership is of- course on the Respondent Bank, but in case such initial proof is given, it will be for the Petitioner to show that it is not a member. So also, initial burden of showing that a loan was advanced to the Petitioner Society is also on the Respondent Bank. All these issues were sought to be raised at the primary stage and, Recovery Officer has rightly kept all these issues open. Considering this, no fault can be found with the Orders passed by the Assistant Registrar or by the Divisional Joint Registrar who have dismissed the Applications. 3. It is again made clear that all questions are kept open to be agitated at the time of final hearing of the Application under section 101 and the Assistant Registrar will have due regard to the 3 21.22wp8072.8073.11 controversy and will also have due regard to the fact that in the present case, the Petitioners are disputing their membership of the Respondent Bank, as also disputing disbursement of loan and the initial burden is on the Respondent Bank. 4. Both the Petitions are dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)