JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Issue raised in all the writ petitions being the same, those were heard together on 19.11.2019 and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Short point for consideration in all the four writ petitions is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the two lower authorities were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of proceedings instituted by respondent No.1 under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 till adjudication of the dispute filed by the petitioners under Section 91 of the said Act?

3. Heard Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Satelwad, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 - Bank; Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.10114 of 2019 and W.P.(St.) No.25493 of 2019; also heard Mr. Mali, Mr. Babar, Mr. Walimbe and Mr. Nelson Rajan, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondentState in W.P.Nos.10102 of 2019, 10108 of 2019, 10114 of 2019 and W.P.(St.) No.25493 of 2019 respectively.

4. As requested on behalf of the petitioners, Writ Petition No.10108 of 2019 is taken up as the lead case.

5. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune i.e. respondent No.3 affirming the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune i.e. respondent No.2 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of Section 101 proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) filed by respondent No.1 till adjudication of the dispute lodged by the petitioners under Section 91 of the said Act.

6. According to the petitioners, M/s. Raj Systems Private Limited and petitioner No.1 sought financial assistance from respondent No.1, which is Mahanagar Co-operative Bank Limited, a co-operative credit society. In this connection, the prospective borrowers had offered various properties as security. Respondent No.1 had agreed to grant loan including credit facilities to the borrowers.

7. Case of the petitioners is that Chairman of Respondent No.1 had told them that one of his close relatives and old customer of respondent No.1 Mr. Kumar Narawade, Director of Sai Dutta Infra Private Limited was facing financial difficulties. His loan account with respondent No.1 was declared as a Non- Performing Asset (NPA). The borrowers were told that credit facilities to them would be approved on the condition that an amount of Rs.1,76,50,000.00 should be transferred to the NPA account of Mr. Kumar Narawade. The borrowers were impressed upon that since direct crediting into the NPA account was not possible, such a round about routing was necessary. Borrowers were assured that in the month of April, 2015, the aforesaid amount would be transferred back into the accounts of the borrowers. Faced with the difficult situation and in dire need of finance, the borrowers accepted the above condition though they had no business relations with Mr. Kumar Narawade. Though there was a total loan transaction of more than Rs.11,00,00,000.00 between respondent No.1 and the borrowers, the latter had to part with an amount of Rs.1,76,50,000.00 to Mr. Kumar Narawade.

8. It is stated that the borrowers realized that this was a conspiracy hatched at the instance of respondent No.1 to defraud them.

9. Faced with such a situation, the borrowers filed a dispute before the Cooperative Court at Pune for a declaration that the disputants i.e. the borrowers were not liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,50,000.00 to respondent No.1 and for a further declaration that the loan transaction was a bogus and sham transaction; further the disputants were not liable to pay any amount to respondent No.1. The said dispute was filed on 06.04.2018 and