1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3109 of 2010 (Prarabdha Constructions, Nagpur, through its partners Shri Prabhakar Shyamrao Bhadke and others v. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri D.V. Chauhan, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for Respondent No.2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 27 th April, 2011 1. Heard Shri Tambde, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; and Shri Lonare, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. By an order dated 22-8-2003 passed in Case No.237 of 2003, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, had issued the certificate of recovery under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the said Act”) against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,39,198.45 along with future interest at the rate of 20% with effect from 11-3-2003 till its realization. This order was the subject-matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioner in 2 Revision No.508 of 2006 preferred before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, under Section 154 of the said Act. By an order dated 30-3-2009, the Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed the said revision, against which the present petition has been preferred by the borrower. 3. In earlier round of litigation, this Court had remanded the matter back to the Divisional Joint Registrar by an order dated 3-12-2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4432 of 2008. By this order, the respondent-Bank was permitted to file certain documents before the Divisional Joint Registrar, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-Bank and the Divisional Joint Registrar was directed to take the said documents into consideration and decide the matter afresh. It is pursuant to this remand order that the order impugned in this petition has been passed. 4. The challenge before the Divisional Joint Registrar by the petitioner was that after declaring the loan account of the petitioner as Non-Performing Assets (NPA), no interest could have been charged. Similarly it was also challenged that the rate of interest levied was excessive. Both these points have been taken into consideration by the Divisional Joint Registrar in his order, impugned in this petition. After taking into consideration the rival contentions, the finding is recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar that it is permissible for the respondent-Bank as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India to maintain a separate account for interest and which has been so maintained by the respondent-Bank. The Divisional Joint Registrar has recorded a further finding that the contractual interest rate has been agreed between the parties and the Authority cannot interfere with such 3 agreement. 5. Shri Tambde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Divisional Joint Registrar has committed an error in recording such findings. However, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it would not be permissible for this Court to consider the said ground. The findings of fact recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar are based upon the relevant considerations and no illegality or perversity in respect thereof has been brought to the notice of this Court. 6. Relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Versova Gurudutt Cooperative Hsg. Scty. Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors., reported in 2004(1) ALL MR 1, Shri Tambde, the learned counsel, has urged that the action initiated by the respondent-Bank seeking certificate of recovery under Section 101 of the said Act was barred by limitation. He, however, fairly concedes that this was not the question, which was raised at any time before the lower Authorities. It is well settled that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and it cannot for the first time be entertained by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of above, the petition has no merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl