SSK/43 & 47 1 WP.2963.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2963 OF 2011 Dinesh Harinarayan Arora & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shivsahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2999 OF 2011 Rajesh Harinaryan Arora & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shivsahyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd.. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Pravin Patel i/b Mr. Pradip Shukla & Co., Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. S. A. Pawar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Ms. Aparna D. Vhatkar, AGP for respondent nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 18th APRIL, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. SSK/43 & 47 2 WP.2963.11 3. Both the above writ petitions arise out of proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the MCS Act”). The petitioner no.1 in both the petitions are real brothers. By the impugned orders, respective petitioners’ application for condonation of delay was rejected. In these circumstances, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 4. The 1st respondent filed separate applications under Section 101 of the MCS Act against the respective petitioners for recovery of the dues. The 2nd respondent after hearing the respective petitioners was pleased to grant a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the MCS Act in favour of the respondent no.1 on 1st October, 2009. This recovery certificate is challenged by the respective petitioners under the provisions of Section 154 of the MCS Act before the District Deputy Registrar on 8th January, 2010. The limitation for preferring revision application, however, being 60 days, separate applications also came to be filed for condonation of delay of approximately 49 days. As stated above, these applications have been rejected and, therefore, the present petitions. 5. In the applications for condonation of delay, the petitioners stated that they are facing financial crisis and, therefore, could not arrange SSK/43 & 47 3 WP.2963.11 50% of the recovery dues which are required to be deposited with the respondent no.1. This amount was arranged only on 30th of December, 2009 and, thereafter, instructions were given to their lawyer to file revision applications. It was also stated that intimation of the order under Section 101 of the MCS Act was received by the petitioners on 20th October, 2009. The explanation for delay given by the petitioners was not accepted by the District Deputy Registrar and consequently, the District Deputy Registrar refused to condone the delay. 6. It is admitted fact that the respective petitioners before filing of the revision application have deposited an amount equivalent to 50% of the recoverable dues with the respondent no.1 on 30th December, 2009. Under the provisions of Sub-Section (2A) of Section 154 of the MCS Act, the deposit of 50% of recoverable dues with the Society is a condition precedent to entertain the revision application. The petitioners, therefore, could not have filed revisions before arranging for payment of 50% of recoverable dues. It was the contention of the petitioners that as they were facing financial crisis and some time was consumed by them in raising this amount. If the date of the order and the date of intimation of the said order to the petitioners is considered along with the date on which the revisions came to be filed, then, the delay comes to around 18 days. In my view, this delay is not inordinate and in any case deserves to be condoned as the SSK/43 & 47 4 WP.2963.11 petitioners have shown sufficient cause viz. they were facing financial crisis. The impugned orders are not sustainable and same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by passing a common order: 1. The impugned orders are quashed and set-aside and the petitioners’ applications for condonation of delay are allowed. 2. The District Deputy Registrar shall hear the petitioners’ revisions on merits as expeditiously as possible. In the light of the above order, the petitions are disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)