IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the MCS Act, the issuance of recovery certificates involves a summary inquiry focused on the quantification of arrears, and that disputes requiring evidence must be addressed through a different legal framework, thereby reinforcing the limited scope of authority under Section 101.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - By this judgment and order, six writ petitions shall be disposed of. Three writ petitions were filed by Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited, while the other three writ petitions were filed by the company - Sundeep Polymers Private Limited along with its two Directors. Since, the company went into liquidation, the official liquidator is now representing the said company before this Court. For the sake of convenience, the contesting parties are referred to as the co-operative bank and the company in liquidation. Both parties are aggrieved by orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter referred to as 'Joint Registrar'). The co-operative bank is aggrieved by orders dated 15th May 2009 and 20th May 2009, passed by the Joint Registrar. The company in liquidation is aggrieved by orders dated 11th November 2008, passed by the Joint Registrar.

2. Before referring to the chronological sequence of events leading to filing of the six writ petitions, it would be appropriate to refer to the order dated 15th November 2017, passed by this Court (Coram: Dr. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice), in a Miscellaneous Civil Application. By the said order, this Court allowed the application, as a consequence of which all the writ petitions stood transferred from the Aurangabad Bench of this Court, where they were originally filed, to the principal seat of this Court. In the said order, this Court directed that since the company had gone into liquidation, the writ petitions would be heard by the company Court. It is for this reason that the six writ petitions have come up for consideration before this Court.

3. The co-operative bank filed three writ petitions before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court to challenge the said orders dated 15th May 2009 and 20th May 2009, whereby the Joint Registrar dismissed the Revision Applications filed by the co-operative bank, thereby confirming orders dated 20th June 2008, passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant Registrar'). By the said orders, the Assistant Registrar had cancelled the recovery certificates issued in favour of the co-operative bank and against the company in liquidation under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCS Act').

4. It is the case of the co-operative bank that it had advanced loans to the company in liquidation. According to the co-operative bank, the company in liquidation and its directors as guarantors committed default in repayment of the loans, due to which the cooperative bank was constrained to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the MCS Act. According to the co-operative bank, all necessary material required for issuance of recovery certificates under Section 101 of the MCS Act was placed before the Assistant Registrar. On 8th May 2002, the Assistant Registrar issued recovery certificates, relying upon such material placed on record by the cooperative bank.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the company in liquidation filed revision applications before the Joint Registrar under Section 154 of the MCS Act. The revision applications were rejected as being untenable due to non-compliance of Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act. The said provision requires the revision applicant to deposit 50% of the total amount due under the recovery certificate with the co-operative bank in whose favour the recovery certificate has been issued. The company in liquidation and its directors challenged the said orders of the Joint Registrar by filing writ petitions before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. The writ petitions were dismissed, against which the company in liquidation and its directors filed Latest Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. The Latest Patent Appeals were also dismissed, whereupon the company in liquidation and its directors approached the Supreme Court.

6. The Special Leave Petitions fi