-: 1 :- wp 2104/11 and group. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2104 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2105 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2106 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2107 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2108 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2109 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2110 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2112 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2114 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2115 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2011 AND srp -: 2 :- wp 2104/11 and group. WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2011 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2011 Ichalkaranji Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Mr. Hiten Venegaonkar for the petitioner. Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counseil with Siddharth Karpe for R-5. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for R-1 to 4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : April 27, 2011. P. C. : 1. The above writ petitions are filed taking exception to the common order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Pune Region, Pune in separate revision applications. The issue involved in these petitions is one and the same, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned advocates taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioner is a co-operative Bank now in liquidation. Respondent no.5 is member of the petitioner-bank. Respondent no.5 obtained loan from the petitioner. Since it was not repaid the bank initiated proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- -: 3 :- wp 2104/11 and group. operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short “the said Act”] for the recovery of outstanding dues against respondent no.5. Respondent no.4 by his order dated 12th March 2004 granted recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner-bank and against respondent no.5. This order was challenged by respondent no.5 by filing revision under section 154 of the said Act before respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 vide its order impugned in the present petitions allowed the revision applications and the order of respondent no.4 dated 12th March 2004 granting recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner bank was quashed and set aside and the Liquidator was given direction to initiate fresh proceedings for recovery before the appropriate authority as per the provisions of law. 4. Mr. Venegaokar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the revisional authority has set aside the recovery certificate are non-est. He submitted that though the status quo order was granted by the Co- operative Court in a Dispute at the instance of respondent no.5 against the petitioner on 31/8/2002, however, same was vacated on 15/5/2004. He submitted that respondent no.5 by filing an interim application requested the Co-operative Court to restrain the petitioners from entering into factory premises, locking the same, stopping the business activities or interfering with the process of -: 4 :- wp 2104/11 and group. manufacturing at the factory premises of respondent no.5. He submitted that the status quo order should be interpreted in terms of the prayers and therefore the said order will not come in the way of the Assistant Registrar to grant recovery certificate under section 101 of the said Act. He also submitted that the Assistant Registrar passed a reasoned order and therefore no objection could have been taken by the revisional authority in this regard. He requested for confirming the order of the Assistant Registrar by setting aside the impugned order. 5. Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 tendered a copy of the order dated 31th August 2002 passed by the Co-operative Court No.2, Kolhapur below Exhibit-5 in S.C.C.K.No. 1193 of 2003. Similar Disputes were filed by respondent no.5 in each of the above petitions and similar orders were also passed in those Disputes. He pointed out that by this order, the petitioner was directed to maintain status quo in respect of recovery of the amount from respondent no.5. He submitted that subsequent to this order, the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 101 of the said Act which they could not have. He further submitted that the Revisional authority has rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar and therefore no interference is called for in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. -: 5 :- wp 2104/11 and group. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order alongwith compilation of the writ petition, I find that the proceedings under section 101 of the said Act were initiated by the petitioner-bank by filing an application on 11/10/2002. As stated above this application was allowed by the Assistant Registrar by order dated 12/3/2004. It is pertinent to note that prior to the filing of an application under section 101, respondent no.5 had already approached the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the said Act and had filed Dispute for declaration, injunction and settlement of accounts. Respondent no.5 filed interim application under section 95 of the said Act for various reliefs. What is relevant is the order passed by the Co-operative Court on 31/8/2002. By the said order, the Co-operative Court directed the petitioner-bank to maintain status quo as on today [i.e., 31/8/2002] in respect of the recovery of amount from respondent no.5 till filing of Say. This order was continued from time to time and admittedly it was vacated on 15/5/2004. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner initiated the proceedings under section 101 of the said Act and Assistant Registrar concluded the same by passing order dated 12.3.2004 during the operation of the status quo order granted by the Co-operative Court in a Dispute filed by respondent no.5. The Revisional Authority has considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that the petitioner -: 6 :- wp 2104/11 and group. could not have proceeded with the recovery of amount against respondent no.5 when the status quo order of the Co-operative Court was in operation and especially when the petitioner was aware very much aware about it. The impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar setting aside the recovery certificate, in my view, is justified. 7. During the pendency of revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the Board of Liquidator was appointed on petitioner-bank. Respondent no.5 prosecuted the proceedings of revision after taking permission of the Registrar under section 107 of the said Act. By clause (3) of the impugned order, the Divisional Joint Registrar gave direction to the Liquidator to initiate fresh proceedings for recovery before the appropriate authority as per the provisions of law. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that this clause will be interpreted to mean that the Liquidator can initiate proceedings under section 105 only. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner-bank is uncalled for. Section 105 of the said Act deals with the powers of the Liquidator. Under clause (a) of section 105(1) of the said Act the Liquidator has got powers to institute or defend any suit and other legal proceedings, civil or criminal, on behalf of the society, in the name of his office. Thus, Liquidator can initiate recovery proceedings under the provisions of section 101 or section 105 of the said Act. It is for the Liquidator to decide to resort to the relevant provisions of -: 7 :- wp 2104/11 and group. law. 8. Mr. Venegaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also pointed out that subsequent to the order dated 12/4/2004 passed under section 101 of the said Act, property of respondent no.5 is attached. His contention is that huge loan amount is to be recovered from respondent no.5. Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5, on the contrary submitted that already the 50% amount of the total amount of recoverable dues has been deposited with the petitioner bank in order to comply with the provisions of section 154(2A) of the said Act. It is the apprehension of the petitioner–bank that since recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the said Act, is set aside by the impugned order, respondent no.5 will insist that this attachment be raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if this attachment is raised, then it would be difficult for the petitioner- bank to recover the loan amount. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Venegaonkar. I feel that interest of justice will be sub-served if the said attachment is kept operative during the pendency and till the final disposal of proposed recovery proceedings. Order accordingly. 9. Subject to above, writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Looking into the nature of controversy and in the interest of -: 8 :- wp 2104/11 and group. justice it will be appropriate to direct the Assistant Registrar to dispose of the proposed recovery proceedings expeditiously. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar is directed to dispose of the proposed fresh recovery proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of four weeks from the date of filing of same, in case the petitioner files such fresh proceedings under section 101 of the said Act within the period of four weeks from today. Parties shall co-operate with the Assistant Registrar for the early disposal of proceedings. 11. Subject to above, writ petitions stand disposed off. Rule is discharged. (RANJIT MORE, J.)