JUDGMENT (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)

1. By this common judgment, we will dispose of the above referred seven Letters Patent Appeals as all of them are directed against the order dated 14th December 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of all the seven Writ Petitions by the same order.

2. The Respondents in all these Appeals had borrowed several sums of money from the Appellant Society from time time. To begin with, the operation of the loan accounts were satisfactory. However, subsequently, as the Oil Mills suffered a set back, the accounts of the Respondents became irregular resulting in filing of an application under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for recovery of the loan amounts stated to be advanced by the Society. As a result of these proceedings, an exparte award came to be passed for recovery of the loan amounts. Subsequently, the parties had agreed for a settlement in terms of which the Respondent was to pay 50% of the outstanding amount within a period of two months from 5th July 2005 and the balance amount was to be paid in one year. The Respondent did not deposit the entire amount. In the case of Letters Patent Appeal No.33 of 2008, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was paid but no time for extension was granted by the concerned authority. Aggrieved from the said order, the Respondent approached the Divisional Joint Registrar for extension of time. Divisional Joint Registrar extended the time. Certain disputes arose as regards to the 8 calculation of the amounts and vide order dated 28th June 2006, the Joint Registrar directed the Appellant Society to accept the balance amount from the Respondent herein as per the compromise formula. As the parties failed to settle the exact amount and the Appellant Society threatened to proceed to recover the amounts as arrears of rent and issued a notice dated 28th July 2006, upon receipt of which, the Respondent filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Act being Dispute No.857 of 2006 and took up the plea that the recovery proceedings initiated were without authority and were not sustainable. This was contested by the Appellant Society and these proceedings were pending when the Managing Committee of the Appellant, which was superseded and the District Deputy Registrar was appointed as a Administrator, at the instance of the Appellant, initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Act against the Respondent herein in which a notice was issued and the same was being contested by the Respondent. The Respondent then in those proceedings filed an application before the Cooperative Court for interim injunction directing the Appellant Society not to pursue the proceedings under Section 101 of the Act. The application for interim injunction was heard and decided by the Cooperative Court at Kolhapur which vide its order dated 20th November 2007 granted exparte adinterim order. This order was appealed against by the Appellant Society before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, Camp at Kolhapur. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 23rd November 2007 stayed the operation of the order dated 20th November 2007. The Respondent in the present Appeal, therefore, challenged the correctness of the order dated 23rd November 2007 in Writ Petitions, which, as already noticed, were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14th December 2007, the operative part of which, reads as under :“

5. After taking instructions from the Petitioners, Shri Patwardhan makes a further statement that the Petitioners would deposit a sum of Rs.95,00,000/with the Administrator without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. Such deposits will be made on or before 15.1.2008. In the event the amount is deposited the order of statusquo granted by the T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document