Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.
Liquidator For, ‘Aamdar Balasaheb Thorat’, Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Yadav Dagadu Andhale – Respondent
Writ Petition No.14178 of 2017, 14796 of 2019
Decided on : 13-01-2022
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 107, 101, 105, 103, 3, 152(1), (a) - Property - Suit For Recovery Of Amount - Brief background for institution of Reg. Darkhast would reveal that petitioners filed a Suit for recovery of amount deposited with respondent No. 1 – Held, Respondent resisted said application with only on one ground i.e. city survey number would be considered for purpose of title and not record of Gram Panchayat - It was further contended that city survey bearing no. 688 belongs to one Shri. Kailash Shrikishan Biyani and Prakash Ramchandra Kolapkar - It was also contended that respondent no. 1 had taken efforts to recover amount from 21 borrowers and value of property is Rs. 80.00 lakhs but petitioner has shown it's value as Rs. 10.00 lakhs - On consideration of rival claims Civil Judge Senior Division, rejected application on ground that property attached by Court is Gram Panchayat Milkat no. 9 and petitioners have not placed on record any document to show that Gram Panchayat Milkat no. 9 is converted in Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 11 - This order came to be passed and is order assailed in writ petition - When impugned order is perused along with record and proceedings of said writ petition, objection of respondents which found favour with learned Judge in impugned order is found to be baseless for a simple reason that Sarpanch/Block Development Officer had issued a Dakhala thereby declaring that Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 9, 10 and 11 is one and same and numbers of property have been revised from time to time but factually property is one and same - Said declaration came to be issued by Gram Panchayat on an application made by Shri. Andhale and in light of said document, there was no reason for authority to have any doubt in it's mind about identification of property - Judgment debtor/respondent is making every attempt to avoid execution of decree and when Gram Panchayat itself has given a Dakhala to effect that property under attachment which was initially described as Milkat No. 9, subsequently stood revised as Milkat No. 10 and thereafter as Milkat no. 11, there is no scope for any doubt being raised that Gram Panchayat milkat no. 9 which was initially attached, would not permit attachment of Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 11, particularly in light of Dakhala given by Sarpanch/Gram Vikas Adhikari of Gram Panchayat, Ashwi – Petition allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses Section 107 powers and the Registrar’s permission to continue proceedings against a winding-up society after a liquidator is appointed (!) (!) . - It analyzes whether the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order permitting continuation of the Darkhast is valid given delegation under Section 3 and Government notifications, concluding it is legal and valid (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 9, 10, and 11 are the same property per a Dakhala, and thus the attachment remains valid for continuation of execution; writ petitions quashed in part (14796/2019) and order to proceed with execution upheld in light of the Court’s directions on 12.12.2018 (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. The two writ petitions challenge two distinct orders but since the orders impugned arise out of the similar background, the petitions were heard together and being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. In writ petition no. 14178 of 2017, the liquidator of ‘Aamdar Balasaheb Thorat’ Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Ashwi, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pat Sanstha’) is the petitioner along with one Shri. Yadav Dagadu Andhale and Smt. Parvatabai Yadav Andhale as the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Divisonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik and the Secretary of the Co-operative Department, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, are the other respondents. The said writ petition pose a challenge to the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner in Spl. Darkhast No. 102/2002, dated 29.04.2017 passed below Exh. 168 and the petitioner seek a relief to the effect that the application filed by the petitioner on 13.03.2015 on the ground that the power exercised by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 05.03.2013, thereby granting permission to continue the Darkhast by invoking power under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 be allowed. The said writ petition assail the power of the Divisional Joint Registrar to pass the said order, and the ground raised in the petition is to the effect that when the power of the Registrar are conferred on the Dy. Registrar for the Taluka, then whether the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies was empowered to exercise the said power. In another writ petition no. 14796/2019, the petitioners are Yadav Andhale and Parvatabai Andhale and the petition is instituted against the liquidator of the Pat Sanstha and the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the State of Maharashtra and raise a challenge to the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner, rejecting the application below Exh. 204 filed by the petitioners for the purposes of continuing the proceedings in Reg. Darkhast against the properties mentioned therein vide Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 10 and subsequently numbered as 11 and the application of the petitioners came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the property under attachment being Gram Panchayat Milkat No. 9 which came to be attached in the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, is not the same property as Gram Panchayat Milkat Property No. 10 and 11.
3. The brief background for institution of the Reg. Darkhast would reveal that the petitioners Yadav Andhale and Parvatabai Andhale filed a Suit bearing no. 377/1998 for recovery of amount deposited with the respondent No. 1 - ‘Pat Sanstha' before the learned Co-operative Court at Kopargaon which came to be decreed on 31.08.2002, wherein the Co-operative Court directed the respondent no.1 to pay an amount of Rs. 2,86,260/- along with interest @18% p.a. from 01.08.1997 upto realization of the entire amount.
4. Pursuant to the said judgment and award, the petitioner filed execution proceeding before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner bearing no. 102/2002 in which the respondent no. 1 appeared and resisted the claim. During the pendency of the said Darkhast, the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society, Sangamner initiated an inquiry under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against the Society and after inquiry, declared the society to be wound up and appointed a liquidator by virtue of Section 103 of the Act of 1960. In the wake of appointment of the liquidator, since Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act contemplated a permission for continuation of proceedings against the society from the Registrar, the petitioner preferred an application for permission to continue the proceedings against the society to the learned Registrar and upon considering the legal position, the Joint Registrar, Na
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
