The court emphasized that the sympathetic view taken for granting leave to defend on deposit of Rs. 25.00 crores was uncalled for, and the Corporation's application for leave to defend was considered frivolous.

( 1 ) THESE cross-petitions challenging the order of Maharashtra state Cooperative Appellate Court at Mumbai in Revision Application no. 194 of 2003 passed on 28-9-2004 whereby the challenge to the order passed by the Co-operative Court No. 1 at Mumbai passed on 4-4-2003 came to be partly allowed, are being decided by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) HEARD Shri, R. N. Singh, the learned advocate General for the State of Madhya pradesh with Mr. Shashi Jain for the Madhya pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation" for the sake of brevity), the petitioner In writ petition No. 9477 of 2004 and respondent in writ petition No. 9859 of 2004 and Mr. V. A. Thorat, the learned senior counsel with Mr. A. G. Sugdare i/b. Mahimtura and Company for the Mumbai district Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereafter referred to as "the Bank" for the sake of brevity) the respondent in writ petition No. 9477 of 2004 and petitioner In writ petition No. 9859 of 2004.

( 3 ) RULE. The respective parties waive service. By consent, Rule was taken up for final hearing forthwith.

( 4 ) THE first petition has been filed by the corporation which is the opponent and the second petition has been filed by the Bank which is the disputant in case No. CC-I/ 325/2002 filed before the 1st Co-operative court at Mumbai. The said dispute under section 91 has been Instituted by the Bank as a summary proceedings under Section 94 (4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Rule 77-F of the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 100. 00 Crores which at had invested by way of deposits with the opponent-Corporation, with Interest as the rate of 16% per annum as agreed at the time of initial contract between the parties. The said dispute was filed on or about 20-11-2002, as the Corporation allegedly failed to honour the demands of recovery on or about 12-12-2002 and in the said proceedings, without filing its written statement, the opponent-Corporation submitted an application for leave to defend unconditionally. The said application was opposed by the Bank by filing its say and after hearing both the parties, the learned judge of the Co-operative Court No. 1 at mumbai by his order dated 4-4-2003 was pleased to allow the said application and leave was granted to defend unconditionally. The Bank, therefore, approached the maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate court In Revision, as mentioned hereinabove. The Revision Court did not agree with the view taken by the Co-operative Court and by considering that the Corporation is a state Undertaking, took a sympathetic view and more particularly having regards to its purported precarious financial conditions leave to defend was granted subject to payment of Rs. 25. 00 crores within two months from the date of the order I. e. 20-9-2004.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the Corporation submitted that the co-operative Court being the Court of first instance had considered all the Issues raised and being satisfied that the disputant Bank was required to prove beyond doubt on the point of jurisdiction, limitation, territorial jurisdiction, it has granted leave unconditionally and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Revision Court to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court. The Revision Court fell in serious error apparent on the face of the record and proceeded to answer some of the preliminary issues like Jurisdiction etc. and decided them finally. The revision Court proceeded on certain presumptions which are not supported from record. While challenging the impugned order, the learned Advocate General placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) M/s. Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577, (ii) Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, air 1958 SC 321, (iii) Milk