The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the appropriate remedy for the petitioner under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002.

1. Rule. Mr.Kanetkar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the respondents are served. None appeared for the respondent no.3 when the matter was called out.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 23rd January, 2014 passed by the respondent no.5 in Revision Application No.312 of 2009 thereby returning the Recovery Application dated 24th September, 2003 and directing the petitioner to file the said application under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Co-operative Court and setting aside the order dated 31st October, 2008 passed by the respondent no.4.

3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:-

4. Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd. was registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and had alleged to have given a loan to a proprietary concern of M/s.Vasudeo Khachermal & Co., a proprietary concern of Mr.Vasudeo Khachermal Agarwal. The respondent no.1 had applied for a loan to the erstwhile bank i.e. Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 had executed various documents including security/guarantee in favour of Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that each of those parties committed default in making re-payment of the said loan to the said Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd. The said bank had filed an application under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 for issuance of recovery certificate. The said bank had granted further facilities in favour of those respondents.

5. On 23rd October, 2008, the petitioner bank had been converted as Multi-State Scheduled Co-operative Bank under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The said Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd. amalgamated with the petitioner w.e.f. 18th August, 2007.

6. On 31st October, 2008, the respondent no.4 rejected the Recovery Application No.422 of 2003 and rendered various findings against the said Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Sahakari Bank Ltd.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31st October, 2008, the petitioner filed Revision Application No.312 of 2009 before respondent no.5 under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 23rd December, 2008. The respondent no.5 passed an order dated 23rd January, 2014 thereby partly allowing the said revision application and setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.4. The revision authority however directed that a dispute be filed under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner thus filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Mr.Kanetkar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to various findings recorded by the respondent no.4. He also invited my attention to the order passed by the respondent no.5. He submits that the respondent no.5 has though set aside the findings recorded by the respondent no.5 in the impugned order has without assigning any reasons has directed the petitioner to file a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

9. It is submitted that the pending proceedings prior to the petitioner having registered as Multi-State Schedule Co-operative Bank, the prior proceedings would be continued to be governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the pending application under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 filed by the erstwhile bank which were amalgamated with the petitioner ought to have been continued before respondent no.4 and no direction to file under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 could have been issued by the respondent no.4 or respondent no.5.

10. Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 on the other han