JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---Both these writ petitions can be disposed of together by a common order, for the question involved is common. The petitioner in both these petitions initiated action against the respondent No. 1 in the respective petitions for recovery of certain amounts due to it; And after following due procedure obtained recovery certificate under section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By virtue of section 101 of the Act, the society became entitled to recover the amounts certified therein. That certificate was however, challenged by the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions, by way of statutory revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar rejected the said revisions and opined that on verifying the papers it is seen that the Assistant Registrar had followed the necessary procedure and that the contention raised before him that the subject loans were Benami and were not genuine document could not be gone into in the revision proceedings. The revisional authority then observed that the respondent No. 1 in the respective cases if so advised could file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court while it rejected the revisions. Against the said decision respondent No. 1 in the respective petitions filed writ petition(s) in this Court which was rejected by one word order 'Rejected'. After the rejection of the writ petition, respondent No. 1 in both writ petitions, filed dispute before the Co-operative Court for declaration that entry shown in the accounts as against their respective names was not binding on them and they were not required to pay the said amount and for further reliefs that certificate issued under section 101 against them in respect of the said amounts should not be allowed to be enforced by the petitioner society. This dispute(s) was contested by both the sides. Interim orders were passed in both these disputes against which the society carried the matter in appeal and later on in writ petition before this Court, but interim injunction was continued. Eventually, both the disputes have been decided in favour of the respondent No. 1 and declaration as sought has been granted by the Co-operative Court. Against the said Award the petitioner society filed two separate appeals. Both the appeals have been dismissed by the Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay by the impugned order dated 22-3-1990.

2. The only question raised before this Court during the arguments is that the certificates issued under section 101 of the Act are final and binding between the parties and the same cannot be questioned by way of dispute under section 91 of the Act. According to the petitioner society, this question now stands answered in the decision of this Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 2277 of 2001 decided on 30th/31st January, 2002 in (Bhusawal People's Bank Ltd.)1, The learned Counsel therefore contends that once it is held that the dispute under section 91 is a complete bar in respect of reliefs claimed, then the other reasons recorded by the courts below though concurrent would be of no avail and the dispute as a whole will have to be dismissed being barred by operation of law.

3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in both the petitions contends that the question whether the dispute filed by the respondent No. 1 was maintainable or not was specifically raised in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner society and therefore the same cannot be canvassed in the present writ petition on the principles of res judicata.

4. Having considered the rival submissions I would first advert to the decision in the case of Bhusaval Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), relied by the Counsel for the petitioner. In paras 10 and 11 of the said decision, the Court has analyzed the scheme of section 91 and section 101 of the Act and has unequivocably found that on conjoint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document