(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 451 of 2009 1. M/s. R.S. Trading Agencies, Through its Partner, a) Smt. Neena Murlidhar Rizwani, R/o. Ashirwad, Plot No.2, Dashmesh Nagar, Aurangabad. b) Haresh Murlidhar Rizwani, R/o. As above. 2. Murlidhar Khimandas Rizwani, R/o. As above. 3. Anuradha Murlidhar Rizwani, R/o. As above. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Division Aurangabad. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies at Aurangabad. 3. Adarsha Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, Shivjyoti Colony, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its General Manager. (2) 4. Adarsha Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, Shivjyoti Colony, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its Special Recovery Officer. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Ms. Vaishali Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 1ST JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21st January 2009, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad, in Revision Application No. 32/2008, thereby confirming the order of attachment of immoveable property of the petitioners, dated 2nd December 2008, issued by the respondent no.4 3. The petitioner no.1 has borrowed loan from the respondent (3) no.3 Bank. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are guarantors to the said loan transaction. Since the petitioner no.1, Firm, had committed default in the payment of loan, the respondent no.3 had applied for issuance of recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The said recovery was objected by the petitioner. However, vide order dated 18th October 2008, the respondent no.2 issued the recovery certificate. According to the said recovery certificate, the defaulted amount is to be recovered from the stock in the premises of the petitioner no.1 and only in the event, dues of the Bank could not be satisfied from the auction of the stock, the amount was to be recovered from the sale of the immovable property of the borrowers / guarantors. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners, that accordingly the petitioner no.1 has given the stock in the custody of the respondent no.4, Special Recovery Officer. It is the contention of the petitioners that inspite of giving stock to the respondent no.4, the respondent no.4 has passed an order on 2nd December 2008, attaching immovable property of the petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby, a revision was filed by the petitioners. The same is also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 5. However, during the pendency of the petition, the present petitioners have shown their willingness to settle all the accounts of the respondent no.4 Bank. Accordingly, an undertaking is given to this court, which is duly signed by the partners of the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2, who is a guarantor. In the said undertaking, the petitioners have undertaken that in the event, they receive stock / goods from respondent no.4, which was handed over to respondent no.4 by the petitioners, they would pay an amount of Rs. 35,000,00/- [Rupees thirty (4) five lacs] to the respondent Bank within two months from the date of receipt of the stock. It has further been undertaken by the petitioners, that the remaining amount as per the recovery certificate would be paid within a period of one month after earlier period of two months. It has further been undertaken by the petitioners, that the entire amount towards the recovery certificate dated 18th October 2008 would be paid within a period of three months from receiving the stock / goods from the respondent no.4. 6. All the three deponents have accepted the liability individually and severally to pay the entire amount as per recovery certificate dated 18th October 2008. The said undertaking is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. 7. In the light of the undertaking given by the petitioners, the petition is partly allowed with the following directions : (i) The respondent no.4 is directed to hand over the entire stock seized by him from the petitioner no.1, to the petitioner no.1, within a period of two weeks from today i.e. on or prior to 15th July 2009. The stock shall be handed over in the presence of an officer deputed by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 shall ensure that the compliance with these directions is made by the respondent no.4 on or prior to 15th July 2009. (ii) The petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty Five Lacs] on or prior to 15th September 2009 to the respondent no.3 Bank. (5) (iii) The remaining amount, after deducting Rs. 35,00,000/- towards the recovery certificate dated 18th October 2008 in Claim No. 412/2008, shall be paid by the petitioners, to the respondent no.3 Bank, on or prior to 15th October 2009. (iv) Needless to state, that on non-compliance with any of the conditions aforesaid, apart from the petition being dismissed for non- compliance with the undertaking given to this court, the deponents shall also be liable for an action of breach of undertaking given to this court, in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Authenticated copy allowed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp451