SRJ 1 wp-5966-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5966 OF 2010 Shri Rajendra B. Sawant .. Petitioner V/s. Shri Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Others. .. Respondents. Shri G.A.Karmalkar i/b. Shri G.S.Hegde & Associates, for the Petitioner. CORAM :R.V.MORE,J. DATE :4th AUGUST,2010. P.C.:- 1. The Petition arises out of the recovery proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No.3 who is the step brother of the Petitioner obtained loan from Respondent No.1-Co-operative Bank. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 stood guarantor to the said loan. Since Respondent Nos.3 to 5 failed to pay the loan, the Respondent No.1-Bank was constrained to file proceedings under section 101 and get issued Recovery Certificate. SRJ 2 wp-5966-10.sxw 2. Respondent No.2- Special Recovery Officer, thereafter, proceeded under Rule 107 of the Co-operative Societies Act and attached property which was mortgaged with the Respondent No.1-Bank by the Respondent No.3. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Revision Application No.115 of 2010 before the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies Pune Division at Pune. The Petitioner has also filed application for stay to the order under Rule 107 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, passed by the Special Recovery Officer. The said application was rejected and, therefore, the present Writ Petition. 3. Grievance of the Petitioner is that the property which was mortgaged to the Respondent No.1-Bank by Respondent No.3 belongs to the father of the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 and, therefore, this property cannot be attached and sold to recover dues of Respondent No.3. Petitioner has already filed suit challenging the mortgaged executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.4 by way of security in favour of Respondent No.1. Since the said property was mortgaged with the Respondent No.1-Bank, the Recovery Officer is justified in proceeding against the said property under section 107 of the said Act. The Petitioner has also not complied with the conditions under section 154(2)(a) of the Co-operative Societies Act. This condition is held to be mandatory by SRJ 3 wp-5966-10.sxw the catena of judgments of this Court. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order to interfere in the order. 4. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE,J.)