1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2806 OF 2009 ... Rajlaxmi Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dhule Through its Manager, Santosh Chunilal Jadhav age 40 yrs, occ. Service, R/o Dhule, Dist. Pune. ...PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.) 2- M/s Sumanik Gas Agencies, Proprietor Sakharam Hodlya Gavit Through its Manager Shri Pravin Sahebrao Deore age Major, Occ. Service, R/o 1, Nahar complex, Sakri Road, Dhule. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri. N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.D.Kaldate, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent- Shri S.P.Brahme, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 18th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2- By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated vide dispute No.16/2009 by the respondent No.2. 3- It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner applied for recovery certificate under section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies 2 Act to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Soceitie’s , Dhule. Accordingly, a recovery certificate under section 101 was issued on 07.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.13,88,274/-. However, it appears that on being served with the order under section 101, the present respondent No.2 approached the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon vide dispute No.16/2009, wherein the learned co-operative court has passed an order dated 12.03.2009 directing the present petitioner to maintain status-quo. 4- The petitioner therefore approached this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vasundhar V/s Rajaram reported in 2003 (4) MLJ 315 and of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kedarling Vikas Seva Society Ltd vs. Dinkar Bhimrao Raut and others reported in 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 152 submits that since recovery certificate has been issued dispute was not tenable. 5- However, during the pendency of the present petition the respondent No.2 has expressed his willingness to satisfy the claim of the petitioner. As such, I donot find it necessary to go in to the legal issues involved. 6- The proprietor of the respondent No.2 namely Shri Sakharam Hodlya Gavit has filed an undertaking before this Court that he is ready to pay outstanding amount payable by him to petitioner Rs.14,89,829/- within a period of three months from today. His undertaking is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. 7- In that view of the matter, petition stands disposed of with 3 following direction. i) The respondent No.2 shall pay an amount of Rs.5 lacs within a period of 15 days from today to the petitioner. Balance amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today. ii) In view of an equivocal undertaking given by the petitioner to this Court, I do not find that any purpose would survive in keeping dispute No. 16/2009 pending before the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon, same therefore stands disposed off. 8- It is further made clear that for the period of three months recovery certificate issued against the present petitioner shall stand suspended. On the entire payment being made, the claim against the recovery certificate shall stand fully satisfied and as such it would not be acted upon. It is further made clear that on failure to make payment within the period of three months from today, apart from the petitioner being liable for breach of the undertaking given to this Court, the recovery certificate issued against the respondent No.2 by the Assistant Registrar will be given effect to and the petitioner would be entitled to take further proceedings in accordance with the said recovery certificate. 9- Rule is disposed of in terms of prayer clause “b”. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE aaa/wp2806.09 ...