JUDGMENT - P.C.:---The sole question that falls for consideration in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 is whether a dispute would lie under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act challenging a recovery certificate granted under section 101 of the said Act. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are few and may be shortly stated. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 borrowed loan from the 1st respondent Bank for which petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were surities. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 made defaults and, therefore, the Bank approached the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka Walva, District Sangli for issuing Recovery certificate under section 101 of the Act. It appears that three separate applications were filed by the bank. The borrowers as well as surities were joined as parties. The petitioners failed to appear in spite of notice and consequently ex parte orders were passed whereby recovery certificates were issued in favour of the bank. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 then filed three separate disputes under section 91 of the said Act being Nos. 259, 289 and 290 before the Cooperative Court challenging certificates under section 101 on various grounds. The Cooperative Court dismissed the disputes as not maintainable. Against the order of the Co-operative Court three appeals were filed being Appeal Nos. 120, 121 and 122 of 2002. The Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the appeals by a common order dated 21st December, 2002.

2.Dr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners streneously contended that the provisions of section 101 of the Act provide for summary remedy whereas remedy under section 91 is substantive remedy and since the Competent Authority under section 101 has adopted only summary procedure, a remedy provided under section 91 can be invoked by the parties. He contends that the learned Single Judge of this Court (Kapadia, J.) in (W.P. No. 2542 of 1994)1, decided on 5th September, 1994 has laid down that where the amount is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue pursuant to the certificate issued by the Registrar under section 101, a dispute would lie before the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the Act.

3.We shall first take notice of the relevant provisions of the Act. Proviso to section 91 which is material for the purpose of this petition reads as follows:

"Provided that, an industrial dispute as defined in Clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or rejection of nomination paper at the election to a committee of any society other than a notified society under section 73-IC or a society specified by or under section 73-G, or refusal of admission to membership by a society to any person qualified under therefore, (or any proceeding for the recovery of the amount of as arrears of land revenue on a certificate granted by the Registrar under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 101 ) or sub-section (1) of section 137 or the recovery proceeding of the Registrar or any officer subordinate to him or an officer of society notified by the State Government, who is empowered by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of section 156 shall not be deemed to be a dispute for the purpose of this section."

(Emphasis supplied)

4.Section 101 inter alia provides as under:

101(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 91, 93 and 98 on an application made by a resource society undertaking the financial of crop and seasonal finance as defined under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 (or advancing loans for other agricultural purposes repayable during a period of not less than eighteen months and not mote than five years) for the recovery of arrears of any sum advanced by it to any of its members on account of the financing of crop or seasonal finance (or for other agricultural purposes as aforesaid) or by a crop-protection society for the recovery of the arre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document