Jurisdiction of Co-operative Courts vs DRT for Debt Recovery: Bombay High Court Refers Question to Larger Bench - 2025-12-23

A Debt of Complexity: The Jurisdictional Tug-of-War

In a significant legal move, the Bombay High Court has stepped into the center of a brewing conflict over which forum—the Co-operative Court or the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)—holds the mandate for large-scale debt recovery by co-operative banks. Justice Amit Borkar, presiding over a Review Petition, has formally referred the issue to a larger bench, acknowledging that the tension between state-level co-operative laws and central banking legislation remains unresolved.

The matter, Amritlal P. Shah v. The TJSB Sahakari Bank Limited , follows a wave of legal uncertainty triggered by conflicting Supreme Court interpretations of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act) and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act) .

The Conflict at the Heart of Recovery

The core of the dispute lies in whether co-operative banks, which are state-incorporated societies, can still utilize the * Section 91 * recovery mechanism under the MCS Act when the debt exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. The Petitioner argues that once a bank reaches this threshold, the RDB Act—a central law—occupies the field, stripping the Co-operative Court of jurisdiction.

The legal landscape was recently complicated by the Nagpur Bench judgment in * Washim Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Girishchandra , which suggested that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd.* effectively rendered co-operative banks "banking companies" under the RDB Act, thereby mandating DRT intervention.

A Legal Impasse: Why the Bombay High Court Demurs

Justice Borkar’s decision to refer the matter stems from the delicate balance between the "pith and substance" of legislative lists. While Entry 45 of the Union List grants Parliament control over banking, Entry 32 of the State List preserves the regulation of co-operative societies.

The High Court identified that while Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule (2020) fundamentally challenged the logic of the earlier Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2007) ruling, it did not explicitly confirm that the RDB Act’s jurisdictional bar ( Section 18 ) applies automatically to State co-operative banks. Without an express amendment by Parliament to include State co-operative banks within the RDB Act, the court found itself at a crossroads.

Key Observations

The gravity of the uncertainty is best captured by the court’s own admissions:

• On the status of precedent: "The foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. has been shaken, but its final conclusion has not been expressly overruled."
• On the need for clarity: "The issue involved goes much beyond the facts of the present case. It raises an important question of law concerning the interpretation of central and State laws... These issues are not merely academic."
• On legislative silence: "Where Parliament has spoken expressly, courts cannot supply omissions by analogy."
• The Formal Referral: "Whether, and to what extent, recovery proceedings initiated by State co-operative banks are governed by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and whether the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 stands excluded..."

The Road Ahead: What This Means for Future Cases

By referring this question to a larger bench, the Bombay High Court has paused the immediate application of the Washim Urban precedent in pending review petitions. For legal professionals and banking institutions, this means the current state of "dual-track" recovery continues until a definitive higher-bench ruling emerges.

The practical implications are profound: if the larger bench rules that the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction, it could effectively render the Co-operative Court’s role in debt recovery obsolete for high-value claims. Conversely, maintaining the status quo supports the state-run mechanism but leaves recovery processes vulnerable to constitutional challenges on the grounds of legislative competence. Until that resolution, the question of where a co-operative bank files its claim remains one of the most pressing queries in Maharashtra’s financial law.