IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.969 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.969 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.969 OF 2008 Sakina Tayabji Dholkawalla & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents --- Mr.C.P.Deogirikar for the petitioners. Mr.R.R.Bhosale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms.Kanchan Chimbulkar for respondent No.4. --- CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. DATE : 11th June, 2008 DATE : 11th June, 2008 DATE : 11th June, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. On this petition notice was issued upon a condition that petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.12,000/- in this Court. The petitioners have deposited Rs.12,000/- on 29th April, 2008 and that is how notice was issued to the Society. 2. The Society has filed an affidavit in reply and a copy of the same is duly served on advocate appearing for the petitioners. 3. I have heard Mr.Deogirikar appearing for the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Chimbulkar for respondent NO.4. I :2: have perused the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar so also the figures which have been mentioned in the statement of accounts/bill register. 4. It appears that Society applied under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for issuance of Recovery Certificate and request of the Society was that the petitioners were in arrears of Rs.11,574/- and inspite of demand notice by the Society they failed to pay. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the petitioners was that for last three years there was no water provided in the flat and there is a leakage. It is not as if the Society was not paid the sum as demanded and attention was invited to the contribution of Rs.07,01,800/- by the petitioners. 6. The Recovery Certificate was issued for Rs.11,574/- together with additional interest. But Mr.Deogirikar’s submission is that the statement of accounts would show that the sum of Rs.11,574/- includes interest and therefore further sum by way of interest could not have been directed to be deposited. His further submission is that the revisional authority was :3: in error in not applying its mind to these aspects and merely because the Society’s claim is not of a substantial amount does not mean that the authority should not have considered the request and the submissions of the petitioners. 7. The Society has filed an affidavit and the sum of Rs.11,574/- is mentioned as arrears from April 1998 till March 2002. 8. After the matter was argued for sometime, both sides agreed that from the sum deposited in this Court Rs.11,574/- be paid over to respondent No.4-Society. However, respondent No.4-Society has stated in the affidavit in reply that late Amtubai Dholkawalla was the member of Flat No.104, 1st Floor of the Society’s building. She died intestate and there is no Will or nomination in the records of the Society nor any legal representatives of the deceased member have approached the Society for right, title or interest in their favour. 9. Mr.Deogirikar submits that this is factually incorrect. There is a nomination in favour of the present petitioners and they have approached the Society. However, without prejudice he makes a :4: statement on instructions that the petitioners will make fresh application to the Society for grant of membership rights and transfer of the right, title or interest of the deceased in respect of the flat in their favour and will produce such documents as are relevant for the purposes of decision on the same. 10. Mr.Deogirikar states that the application would be filed within period of 15 days from today. Ms.Chimbulkar appearing for respondent No.4-Society states that the Society will take a decision on the application within the statutory time limit. Needless to state that if the Society fails to take such decision, all consequences in law shall follow. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion in so far as aspect of membership is concerned. In the light of agreement arrived between the parties that the Society will accept the sum of Rs.11,574/- in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the Recovery Certificate, it is directed that the balance be paid over to the petitioners by the registry after adjustment as above. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)