JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.:-The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 154 (2-A) as amended by the Amending Act Maharashtra 41 of 2000. Under the provisions of the sub-section (2-A) it is provided that no application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent, of the total amount of recoverable dues.

2. These provisions of sub-section (2-A) of section 154 are challenged by the petitioner in the context of the facts which are briefly enumerated as under:-

3. A firm known as M/s. Gajanankrupa Enterprises availed of the loan facilities from the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner before the Court was a partner of the said 2nd respondent firm. It is the case of the petitioner that with effect from 20-8-1991 the petitioner retired from the said firm and thus ceased to be a partner any further. However, it is an admitted position that at the relevant time of granting the loan to the said partnership firm, the petitioner was a partner in the said firm. Sometime in or about 1998, the 2nd respondent firm filed a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document