IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of Recovery Certificates under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not subject to a strict limitation period if there is an acknowledgment of liability, which can extend the limitation period.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Amjith M. Anandhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. R. M. Haridas, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and Mrs. V S. Nimbalkar, learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5.

2. The Petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 10th December 2020 passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai in Revision Application Nos.444 of 2018, 445 of 2018 and 446 of 2018 ('impugned Order').

3. It is the case of the Respondent No.2-Society that under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('said Act'), three Recovery Certificates have been issued. The details of the same are set out in tabular format in the impugned Order and the same is reproduced herein below:-

Sr. No.

Revision Application No.

Recovery Certificate amount

1.

R. A. No.444/2018

Rs.9,28,829/-

2.

R. A. No.445/2018

Rs.2,86,117/-

3.

R. A. No.446/2018

Rs.1,43,486/-

The aforesaid Recovery Certificates were issued under Section 101 of the said Act on 29th March 2004 and have attained finality as the same were never challenged.

4. Thereafter, Demand Notice dated 12th June 2014 was issued by the Special Recovery Officer under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 ('said Rules'). The Petitioners filed Revision Application No.357 of 2014 and the operative Order dated 20th September 2014 which is passed on the said Revision, is reproduced herein below:-

'ORDER

1. The delay in filing the present case is condoned.

2. The Revision Application No.357/2014 is disposed of

3. The impugned letter/order dated 12/06/2014 issued by Respondent Special Recovery & Sale Officer is set aside.

4. The case is remanded back to the Respondent SRO for afresh consideration. The Respondent SRO is hereby directed to decide the Application fled by the Applicant herein u/r 107 of the M.C.S. Rules 1961 on merits and in accordance with law after giving a proper and fair opportunity to the concerned parties of being heard.

5. The Respondent Bank and SRO are hereby by directed not proceed with the impugned recovery proceeding/execution against the Applicant herein till disposal of the aforesaid Application u/r 107 of the M.C.S. Rule 1961.

6. No order as to cost. '

(Emphasis added)

5. Thus, it is clear that by Order dated 20 th September 2014, the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai remanded the matter back to the Special Recovery Officer directing the Special Recovery Officer to decide the Application filed by the Petitioners under Rule 107 of the said Rules. The Petitioners have filed Application under Rule 107(19) of the said Rules. However, it appears that after remand when the matter was scheduled to be heard on 31st December 2014, an Application has been filed before the Special Recovery Officer stating that Petitioners are intending to pay the outstanding amount and that they wanted to settle the matter by making payment under the 'One Time Settlement' ('OTS') Scheme and time was sought, as Application of OTS was pending with the bank. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the said Application for OTS was dismissed by the bank and the Writ Petition challenging that dismissal has also been rejected. Thereafter, Special Recovery Officer has issued a fresh Demand Notice dated 12th August 2020 and the said Demand Notice has been challenged by filing three separate Revision Applications as set out herein above.

6. It is the main contention of Mr. Amjith Anandhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the demand raised is beyond 12 years which is the limitation period for execution of the Recovery Certificate. He submitted that the Recovery Certificate has been issued on 29th March 2004 and the fresh Demand Notice is of 20th August 2018 and therefore, the same is barred by limitation. He further submitted that the original loan itself was not disbursed and documents sh