ssm

sm

sm

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL

CIVIL

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT

WRIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2008

PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2008

PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2008

Suhas Pandurang Mantri

...Petitioner

Vs.

Shri Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd.& Ors....Respondents.

Mr.G.S.Godbole with Ms.Aparna Shinde for the

Petitioner.

Mr.R.V.Govilkar with Mr.S.B.Khurjekar for Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : R.V.MORE, J.

: R.V.MORE, J.

: R.V.MORE, J.

DATED

DATED

DATED : 1st August, 2008

: 1st August, 2008

: 1st August, 2008.

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

2. The Petitioner challenges legality and validity of

the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in

his Revision Application, filed under Section 154 of

the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act-1960

(hereinafter referred to as "said Act"). That the

certificate under Section 101 was issued against

Respondent No.5 and the Petitioner. This certificate

was challenged by filing the Revision Application

before the Joint Registrar. However, the Revision

( 2 )

came to be dismissed for non compliance of the

mandatory provisions under Section 154(2A) of the said

Act. As stated above this order is impugned in the

present petition. The Petitioner also challenges the

constitutional validity of provisions of Section 154

(2A) of the said Act.

3. The constitutional validity of Section 154 (2A) is

already upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in

Kausalya

Kausalya

Kausalya Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors.

Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors.

Sampat Vs. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd., & Ors.

reported

reported

reported in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 651

in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 651

in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 651. The contention of

Mr.Godbole, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner is that Division Bench while upholding

Constitutional Validity of Section 154 (2A) has not

considered the Apex Court Judgment of Mardia Chemicals

Mardia Chemicals

Mardia Chemicals

Ltd.,

Ltd.,

Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)

Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)

Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)

530,

530,

530, in proper prospective. He invited my attention

towards observations made in paragraph No.14 of the

Division Bench Judgment and submitted that the

Division Bench did not consider the ratio of Apex

Court decision in Mardia Chemicals

Mardia Chemicals

Mardia Chemicals on the premise,

that the proceedings in that case were not appellate

or revisional but the same were original. He further

submits that in view of the provisions of Section 17

of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

( 3 )

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act-2002

the proceedings are Appellate proceedings.

4. Mr.Govilkar the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act-2002 was amended on

11/11/2004 by an Act 41 of 2000 thereby added sub

Section (3A) in Section 13. He further submits that

this addition was made after decision of Apex Court in

Mardia

Mardia

Mardia Chemicals (supra).

Chemicals (supra).

Chemicals (supra).

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties, I am not inclined to entertain the

challenge to the Constitutional validity of Section

154 (2A) of the said Act. The Division Bench of this

Court in Kausalya Sampat (supra)

Kausalya Sampat (supra)

Kausalya Sampat (supra). While upholding the

Constitutional validity of Sec