Advocates appeared :

C.J. Sawant, Sr.Adv. with D.W. Bhosale with B.G. Saraf in W.P. No. 6029/2002, for petitioner.

G.E. Vahanvati, Adv.Gen. with Y.D. Mulani, A.G.P. in W.P. No. 6029/2002, for respondent Nos. 1 2.

Shailesh Shah with Ms. Mamta Sudh with P. Ganwani Ms. Meenakshi Mhapankar i/b. V. Deshpande Co. in W.P. No. 6029/2002, for respondents Nos. 3 4.

Shekhar Naphade with A.A. Joshi in W.P. No. 2376/2002, for petitioner.

Anjad Sayed, Asst.G.P. in W.P. No. 2376/2002, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Kishore Tembe in W.P. No. 2376/2002, for respondent No. 4.

Per DESHMUKH D.K., J.:—A batch of writ petitions has been placed before this Bench. The principal question of law that arises for consideration is ""Do the courts and authorities constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act) and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (the 2002 Act) continue to have jurisdiction to entertain applications/disputes submitted before them by the Co-operative Bank incorporated under the 1960 Act and the 2002 Act for an order for recovery of debts due to them, after establishment of a Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act)"".

2. The events that led to the placing of all these petitions before us are that the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Scheduled Multi-State Co-operative Bank, filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the 1993 Act for recovery of certain amounts from M/s. State Glass Works. Before the Debts Recovery Tribunal an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to entertain the proceedings on the ground that the applicant/bank was a Co-operative Bank and not a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. That objection was upheld by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. An appeal preferred against that order of the DRT before the Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Therefore, the Writ Petition No. 835 of 2002 was filed in this Court challenging those orders. That writ petition was decided by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17/18 December, 2002, 2003(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)347 : 2003(2) All.M.R. 583, (The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Star Glass Works and others)1. By that judgment this Court set aside the order passed by the DRT as also the Appellate Tribunal. This Court held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under 1993 Act possess the jurisdiction to entertain an application for recovery of debts due to it submitted by a Co-operative Bank. The Division Bench after referring to the provisions of section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, in detail, held that the Co-operative Bank is a bank within the meaning of section 2(d) of 1993 Act and therefore the only remedy available in terms of the provisions of the 1993 Act to a Co-operative Bank after constitution of the Tribunal under 1993 Act for recovery of dues due to it is apply to such a Tribunal for an order.

3. It appears that Shri Narendra Kantilal Shah filed Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2002 in this Court praying for an order setting aside the recovery certificate dated 6th September, 2000 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies as also the warrant of attachment issued pursuant thereto. It appears that the recovery certificate has been issued by the Asst. Registrar in exercise of his power under section 101 of the 1960 Act on the application made by the Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., which was joined as respondent No. 3 in that writ petition. When that petition came up for admission before the learned Single Judge of this Court, it appears that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shamrao Vithal Bank referred to above was relied on by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge, however, it appears was of the opinion that the Division Bench in its judgment referred to above did not consider that the 1960 Act has been enacted un