1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4066 OF 1991. Sakori Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Tq. Kopargaon and 9 ors. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. Baburao Namdeo Dandavate. .. RESPONDENT. ... Shri Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Shri S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for respondent (absent). ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 16th November, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1991 passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal No.82/141/88. 2. The respondent herein filed Suit No. 96/1986 against the petitioners for recovery 2 of share amount of Rs.5000/- and the compulsory deposit amount, totaling to Rs. 22,960/-. It was the case of the respondent that he is entitled for the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum. It was contention of the respondent before the Cooperative Court that he has given notice dated 8th July, 1985 demanding the above amount however the petitioners have failed to pay the amount and hence the dispute was filed. It was contention of the petitioners herein that the society was in loss and as per the provisions of Rule 21 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules unless the share value is ascertained, the respondent is not entitled to get the share amount. It was further contended that so far the resignation of the respondent is not accepted and unless resignation is accepted, there is no question of making any payment. It was also asserted by the petitioners that as per the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules, all the deposits 3 are not refundable and hence, the petitioners herein prayed for dismissal of the dispute. 3. The Cooperative Court allowed the dispute filed by the respondent. Against the judgment and order of the Cooperative Court, the petitioners filed Appeal No.82/141/88 before the Co-operative Appellate Court Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1991 thereby confirming the judgment and order of the Cooperative Court. Hence, this petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds taken in the writ petition and more particularly, Ground Nos.III, V, VI, VII and IX of the petition and submitted that unless the proper notice is given by the respondent for resignation and said resignation is accepted by the management, the dispute which was filed by the respondent was premature and was not 4 maintainable. According to to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the management of the society had not taken decision on the resignation of the respondent herein and also no permission of the Registrar was obtained for refund of the amount. He further submitted that the judgments and orders passed by the Cooperative Court as well as the appellate Court are without properly appreciating and interpreting the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules. He further submitted that 10% share capital can be withdrawn in a year. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and perused the impugned judgment and order. It appears that notice as contemplated under Rule 21 of the said Rules 5 was given by the respondent. It is also not in dispute that there was any outstanding amount which paid by the petitioners to the respondent. So far as amount of Rs.17,960/- is concerned, there was no dispute about the said amount. It was not in dispute that Rs. 5000/- was share amount. Therefore, the Cooperative Court as well as appellate Court, taking into consideration the evidence brought on record have taken a possible view. So far as payment of rate of interest is concerned, interest @ 12% per annum was awarded. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that resignation was not accepted by the management of the society has been considered by the Cooperative appellate Court and the Court has recorded that merely because resignation is not accepted, that would not be a ground to disentitle the respondent. The requirement of the Rule is that there should be three months notice given to the society. Accordingly, notice was given by the 6 respondent herein to the petitioners – society. 6. In my opinion, both the Courts below have taken a possible view. No interference is called for in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*