The jurisdiction of cooperative banks under debt recovery laws remains ambiguous, necessitating authoritative clarification on their status within the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act vis-à-vis the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By judgment and order dated 11 November 2025, the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 27 December 2021 passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court was set aside. Consequentially, the money decree dated 25 October 2017 passed in favour of Respondent No.1 and against the present Petitioner stood restored. The Petitioner, who was the original respondent in the writ petition, has preferred the present review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 11 November 2025. The sole ground urged in the review petition is the order dated 3 November 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court at the Nagpur Bench in Washim Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Girishchandra , in Writ Petition No.3783 of 2021 dated 03.11.2025 (Nagpur Bench) wherein it has been observed that a cooperative bank is a bank within the meaning of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993(“RDB Act”)and the Cooperative Courts under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960(“MCS Act”) are barred from entertaining applications for recovery of debts exceeding Rupees Ten Lakhs.

2. The Respondent Bank calls in question the correctness of the Single Judge’s decision in Washim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Girishchandra, which held that a co-operative bank’s loan recovery claims in excess of Rs.10 lakh fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and oust the Co-operative Court’s jurisdiction under Section 91 of the MCS Act. The Petitioner in this review submits that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd. [ (2020) 9 SCC 215 ] and the Washim Urban decision itself dictate that co-operative banks are “banks” under central law and must proceed only under the RDB Act, not under MCS Act. The Respondent contends that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule dealt exclusively with the SARFAESI Act, and did not alter the law as to the RDB Act; that the definition of “bank” in the RDB Act differs; and that earlier law in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd. , (2007) 6 SCC 236 excluded co-op banks from RDB jurisdiction. He further argues that the constitutional basis (Part IX-B of the Constitution via the 97th Amendment) supporting Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule has since been struck down in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah [ (2022) 19 SCC 520 ], rendering Pandurang Ganpati’ Chougule’s reasoning weak.

3. I have heard learned counsel and have considered all submissions. The principal questions are (a) whether a co- operative bank is a “bank” under the RDB Act so as to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the DRT for debt recovery beyond Rs.10 lakh, thereby ousting the Co-operative Court under Section 91 MCS Act, and (b) whether Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule and the Washim Urban judgment applying it, require reconsideration by a larger bench in view of the Respondents’ contentions. Because these issues involve a significant interplay of constitutional entries and conflicting precedents, and in the absence of a directly on- point Supreme Court ruling on the RDB Act, I refrain from a final determination on the merits and leave the matter to a larger bench. However, for completeness I detail below the arguments of each side and my provisional analysis of the competing legal positions.

Factual Background:

4. The facts are not in dispute. The Washim Urban Co-op Bank a