1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2482/2011 (MOHD.EZAZ MOHAMMAD SHEIKH VERSUS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOC. & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.F. Bhagwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Bhagde, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri A.K. Chandak, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur on 29.04.2011 dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur did not have jurisdiction to grant a recovery certificate in favour of the respondent no.3-Bank as the respondent no.3-Bank is a Multi-State Co-operative Society and the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.3-Bank ought to have been referred to an Arbitrator in view of the provisions of Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount, which is claimed in the recovery certificate, as interest has been wrongly calculated while determining the amount, which was sought 2 to be recovered by the respondent no.3-Bank from the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the provisions of the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act, 2002, it appears that the respondent no.1-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur had jurisdiction to issue the recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It is necessary to note that the application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was filed by the respondent no.3-Bank before the respondent no.1 in the year 2006 and the recovery certificate was issued in favour of the respondent no.3-Bank on 30.03.2007. For the first time, the respondent no.3-Bank was registered as a Multi-State Co- operative Society on 24.04.2008. In such circumstances, it could not be said that the respondent no.1 did not have jurisdiction to issue the recovery certificate and it was necessary to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 84 of the Act of 2002. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Bank has rightly relied on the decision reported in 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 929 (Abhyudaya Co- operative Bank Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & others) which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. There is no substance in the other submission made on behalf of the petitioner in regard to the wrong calculation of interest while determining the amount, which was due and payable to the respondent no.3-Bank. Even otherwise, that would be a finding of fact and it would not be possible for this Court to enter into that controversy in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE