1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1597 of 2008 Vasant Balkrishna Satoskar Petitioner Vs. Mahim United Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.B.M.Menzes for petitioner. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 23, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Menezes, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent - Society had filed Case No.729 of 1998 under Section 91 of the Maharshtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of certain dues against the present respondent no.2 and the petitioner. The Co-operative Court by its award dated 18/10/2004 directed the present petitioner to pay 50 per cent of the amount of his share i.e. Rs.57,500/- to the society in compliance of the order passed by this Court in Suit No.5487 of 1999 within one month from the order. He was also directed to pay monthly bills regularly from October 1999 onwards with interest at 21 per cent and after giving a 2 credit of the amount of Rs.1,54,159/- deposited in the said Court. This award was challenged in Appeal No.152 of 2004 which has been dismissed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Mumbai by its judgment and order dated 9/12/2005. Both these orders have been brought in question in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Before the lower Appellate Court and this Court as well, the only issue agitated is that of the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to entertain Case No.729 of 1998. The lower Appellate Court has considered this issue and noted that the Co-operative Court by its order dated 22nd September 2000 had held that the objection raised to its jurisdiction was unsustainable and this order was not challenged by the petitioner either before the lower Appellate Court or before this Court. In Writ Petition Nos.6883 and 6884 of 2003 the said issue was again raised by the petitioner before this Court and while summarily rejecting both the petitions on 15/10/2003 it was noted that the order passed by the Co-operative Court on 22nd September 2000 holding that it had jurisdiction remained unchallenged and 3 the same issue could not be agitated. This Court also held that the lower Appellate Court was right in its observations to that extent. 3. It is to be noted that the recoveries were not disputed at all and what was disputed before the Co-operative Court was only the issue of its jurisdiction and that issue having reached finality even before this Court as per the order dated 15/10/2003, the lower Appellate Court could not adjudicate the same and I do not find any reason to hold that the Co-operative Court passed the award without jurisdiction. 4. Hence the petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL