1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6043/2004 The Amravati District Central Co-Operative Bank Amravati ..vs.. The Liquidator Late Rajendra Ingole, Shetkari Sahakari Ginning Pressing Society and five Others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Dastane, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Wandile, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.Thakare, learned counsel for respondent 6. 2. The petitioner is District Central Co-Operative Bank engaged in business of Banking. The petitioner had advanced loan to respondent No. 1 and since the loan remained unpaid, the petitioner also obtained award by filing dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 3. The Registrar, in the meanwhile declared respondent No. 1 Society under Liquidation and the Liquidator came to be appointed under Section 102 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act. The Liquidator held 2 auction of movable and immovable property of respondent No. 1 Society. The petitioner by filing revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act challenged the auction of the property of respondent No. 1 by Liquidator. The petitioner's revision came to be dismissed by the order, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. The auction took place on 25.08.2003 i.e. much prior to the filing of the revision application by the petitioner and the same was also confirmed in accordance with the Circulars issued from time to time. The valuation of the property of respondent No. 1 was done by the Officer of the petitioner itself. 5. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale