JUDGMENT:- By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, in Application No.5 of 1988 dated 14.5.1992. By this order, the Deputy Registrar held that the petitioner who was a guarantor of a loan availed of by respondent No.4 herein was liable to repay the amount as respondent No.4 had defaulted in repaying the loan.

2. The respondent No.4 which is a proprietary concern, availed of the cash credit facility from respondent No.3 Bank. The petitioner and respondent No.5 agreed to be the guarantors for the loan obtained by the respondent No.4 from the Bank. The loan sanctioned by the Bank was to the tune of Rs.5 lacs and the interest rate payable was 18% per annum. Various documents were executed in order to process the loan. These documents included a demand promissory note, cash credit agreement, letter of continuity, letter of hypothecation and the guarantee bond executed by the petitioner and respondent No.5.

3. The borrower i.e. respondent No.4 herein defaulted in repaying the loan. A notice dated 26.12.1987 was issued by the Bank to the borrower with a copy to the guarantors, demanding payment of the amount of Rs.5,61,107/- before 2.1.1988 as that was the outstanding amount. The borrower failed' to comply with the demand notice and therefore proceedings were instituted by the Bank against it as well as the guarantors under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (in short, "the M.C.S. Act"). The respondent No.4 filed the written statement admitting its liability. The petitioner opposed the application by raising several contentions. He also sought inspection of documents from the Bank. An inspection report was submitted to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 17 .12.1991 by the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar passed the impugned order on 19.5.1992. It was held that $in amount of Rs.5,61,107.64 was payable to the Bank along with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 26.12.1987. It was further held that the petitioner and respondent No.5 were equally liable for the debt payableoy the borrower i.e. respondent No.4 herein.

5. Several contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. It has been submitted that while issuing a certificate under Section 101 of the M.C.S. Act, the Registrar is expected only to consider the statement of accounts. The Registrar, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, cannot consider the deed of guarantee and other documents which would make the guarantors liable for repayment of the loan. Furthermore, it is contended that the Registrar, not being concerned with the deed of guarantee, cannot issue a recovery certificate against the guarantors. It is then submitted that since the only document required to be considered is the statement of accounts, the Registrar need not consider the promissory note or any other document executed by the guarantors in order to make them liable for repaying the debt incurred by the principal borrower. It is then submitted that the inspection report submitted by the petitioner indicates the manner in which several irregularities have occurred in respect of the loan accounts of respondent No.4 herein for which the petitioner was one of the guarantors. It is pointed out that the District Deputy Registrar has ignored these allegations by observing that they were of a technical nature.

6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrishna Vs. District Deputy Registrar, reported in 1978 Mh.L.J. 17, in support of his submission that the exercise of power by the Registrar to issue a certificate postulates an application of mind to the facts of the case before him and the adjudication of the correctness or otherwise of the claim. The learned advocate also relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kedar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document