:1: :1: :1: 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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8290 OF 2004 Dawood Gulamhusain Kachwalla .. Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioners. Mr.D.A.Patil AGP for the State. Mr.K.V.Tambe for respondent no.5. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 16.8.2003 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune by which revision application No.153 of 2001 filed by the petitioners has been rejected. The revision was directed against issuance of recovery certificate under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). Mr.Jamdar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar did not consider the submissions advanced by the advocate for the petitioners in proper perspective and has recorded no reasons for rejecting :2: :2: :2: the revision application. I perused the arguments that were advanced by learned advocate before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The arguments, as quoted in the impugned order, read thus: . "On 31.12.2002, Advocate for Revision Applicant present. He has filed written argument on behalf of the Revision applicant. He argued that the Opponent No.3 has passed exparte order against the Revision Applicant without making inquiry regarding statement of accounts produced by the Opponent No.1 bank. He further argued that unnecessary charges i.e. service chargers of Rs.10,000/- stock statement of Rs.4,166/- charged by the Opponent No.1 bank deleted from the loan amount. He further argued that the application filed u/s. 101 of M.C.S.Act 1960 before Opponent No.3 is not maintainable against the Revision Applicant. Hence, this revision application be allowed." 3. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the revisional authority, it cannot be stated that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners were not considered at all. There is no dispute that the total amount which the petitioners are liable to pay as of today under the impugned certificate is almost Rs.One Crore. The petitioners have not disputed that they are defaulters or their signatures on the documents which were placed reliance upon for obtaining certificate under section 101 of the Act. In view thereof, in my opinion, there is no merit in the submissions of Mr.Jamdar. From the paragraph quoted above, it is clear that keeping all the submissions in view the :3: :3: :3: Divisional Joint Registrar passed the impugned order. It may also be noticed that before the Divisional Joint Registrar the petitioners did not deposited 50% of the recoverable dues during pendency of the revision application as provided for under section 154(2-A) of the Act. Even before this court Mr.Jamdar, learned counsel, on behalf of the petitioner expressed inability to deposit more than Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today. It appears that the plot of land and some shops have already been attached by the Bank and the Bank is in possession thereof. Keeping all that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and findings recorded by the authorities below, in my opinion, the impugned order warrants no interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)