1 wp.9882.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2010 Sujat Ali Mohammad Ali Fazalbhoy. ... Petitioner Versus The Agrasen Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. M.A.Patil for the Petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15 th July, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 The Petitioner is one of the opponents in a dispute filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The Respondent No.1 filed a dispute claiming recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,36,345/-. According to the case of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner had borrowed certain amounts from the Respondent No.1 – Bank and the dispute is for recovery of the said amount with interest. An 2 wp.9882.10 application was made by the Petitioner for rejection of the said dispute by pointing out that the Respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 101 of the said Act for grant of recovery certificate in respect of the same loan amount and the said application was rejected. It was contended that the remedy of the Respondent No.1 was to challenge the order rejecting the application for grant of recovery certificate. The application made by the Petitioner was rejected. The Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Co-operative Appellate Court. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Pukhraj Mohanlal Vyas & Ors Vs. Sanmitranagri Sahakari Pata Sanstha Ltd. & Ors [ 2007 (3) ALL MR 254 ]. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sau. Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil Vs. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank Ltd., Sangli & Ors [ 2003 (3) ALL MR 393 ]. He submitted that the order passed on application under Section 101 of the said Act has become final and therefore, the dispute was not competent. 3 wp.9882.10 His submission is that the only remedy available for the Respondent No.1 was to challenge the order passed on application under Section 101 of the said Act. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the aforesaid decisions of this Court. The decisions of this Court have been rendered in cases where recovery certificate was granted under Section 101 of the said Act. The said decisions are in the cases where the person against whom recovery certificate was granted filed a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act for challenging the recovery certificate. In the context of this fact situation, this Court has held that if the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 is not challenged by adopting the remedies under the said Act, a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act for challenging the recovery certificate was not maintainable. 5 In the facts of the present case, the application for recovery certificate was rejected by recording a prima-facie finding that the documents relied upon by the Respondent No.1 were bogus. It was observed that the original documents were not produced by the 4 wp.9882.10 Respondent No.1. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar observed that it was not a fit case to invoke Section 101 of the said Act. While rejecting the application, the Assistant Registrar observed that the Respondent No.1 can file a suit for recovery. 6 Section 101 of the said Act is an enabling provision, which enables the Registrar to grant recovery certificate. It is a summary remedy. If the Registrar is of the view that complicated factual questions are involved requiring detailed evidence, he can always decline to pass an order granting recovery certificate. In the present case, there is no final adjudication made by the Assistant Registrar and only a prima-facie finding was recorded that the Respondent No.1 – Bank did not produce the original documents and the documents produced prima-facie appear to be bogus. Therefore, the Registrar thought it fit not to exercise discretionary powers under Section 101 of the said Act. Section 101 of the said Act is a summary remedy. Therefore, dismissal of the application does not prevent the Applicant in application under Section 101 of the said Act to file a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act for 5 wp.9882.10 recovery of the amount. The decisions relied upon by the Petitioner will not apply inasmuch as those decisions will apply provided a recovery certificate is granted and the person against whom recovery certificate is granted files a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act for challenging the recovery certificate. 7 Hence, the view taken by the Courts below is correct. No case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. However, all contentions on merits are kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J ]