BOMBAY HIGH COURT
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Rainproof Exports Pvt. Ltd. A Private Limited Company Incorporated & Ors. —Respondents
Arbitration Petition Nos. 935, 936 & 937 of 2012
Decided on 23.1.2013
Result: Arbitration Petitions allowed.
R.D. Dhanuka, J.—By consent of parties as the facts and the issues involved in all the above three matters are identical were heard together finally and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. By these petitions filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’) the petitioner seeks to challenge orders dated 9th May, 2011 allowing application filed by the respondents under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and directing the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short ‘Multi State Act’) and for referring them to the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bombay.
3. I shall deal with the facts in Arbitration Petition No. 935 of 2012. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are setout as under:-
4. The petitioner was originally registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is carrying on banking business inter-alia of accepting of deposits and lending of monies to their members by way of loans, cash credit etc. as per banking rules and regulations.
5. By an application dated 17th October, 2000, the 1st respondent applied for sanction of loan of Rs.1,95,00,000/- for the purpose of reschedulement of term loan. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 agreed to stand sureties for the said loan. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 who were directors of the 1st respondent gave personal guarantee for securing the repayment of the said loan. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents committed default in making repayment of the loan. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1st August, 2003 and 18th December, 2003, the 1st respondent acknowledged the debt due to the petitioner. The respondent nos. 2 to 6 agreed that any acknowledgment of debt made by the borrower shall also be binding upon them.
6. Sometimes in the year 2005, the petitioner filed Recovery Application No.Asstt/R/7123 of 2005 under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against respondents for recovery of dues in respect of the said loan account in all the three matters. By a common recovery certificate dated 20th December, 2006, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies issued recovery certificate only in respect of part of the claim made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said recovery certificate dated 20th December, 2006, the petitioner filed three separate Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 558 of 2007, 559 of 2007 and 560 of 2007 in this court challenging the said recovery certificate. By an order dated 25th April, 2007, this court directed the petitioner to move the Revisional authority under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 within a period of four weeks and directed the Revisional authority to dispose of the revision application within a period of four months. By an order dated 10th September, 2007, the Divisional Joint Registrar disposed of the revision application and quashed and set aside the recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar and directed the Assistant Registrar to decide the recovery application separately afresh, in accordance with law and on their respective merits.
7. In the meanwhile, by conversion w.e.f. 11th January, 2007, the bank came to be registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short ‘Multi State Act, 2002). The petitioner is a co-operative bank within the meaning of section 3(f) of the Multi State Act, 2002. As a result of such conversion, the petitioner ceased to be a co-operative society under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and its registration thereunder was cancelled.
8. On 25th November, 2008, the petitioner filed three separate applications before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Mumbai seeking withdrawal of the application filed under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Soc
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.