-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Writ Petition No.5382 of 2007

NM/s Golfadevi Constructions

Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner

vs.

Murali Manohar Nagari

Patsanstha Maryadit ..Respondent

Shri S.M.Oak i/b Shri Sagar Joshi for

petitioner.

Shri Rakesh R.Bhatkar for respondent.

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.

15th January, 2008

15th January, 2008

15th January, 2008

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.

1. This is a petition by the petitioner who is

aggrieved by the order dated 3rd July, 2007 in

Appeal no. 93 of 2007. The petitioner is the

original disputant whereas the appellant before

the lower Appellate Court is the original

opponent. The petitioner filed a dispute being

RTN No.237 of 2006 wherein he had questioned the

action of the first respondent society in

attaching the immovable property. In fact, a

declaration was claimed in the dispute that

after attachment and sale of the mortgaged

properties there is nothing due and payable by

the petitioner to the first respondent and it be

declared that there is due and complete

discharge of the debt or liability.

-2-

2. An application for interim injunction was

made to restrain the first respondent from

attaching and/or selling the immovable so also

movables which are not covered by the mortgage

or hypothecation.

3. In that dispute while the application for

interim injunction was being considered, the

first respondent raised an issue of jurisdiction

of the Cooperative Court. The preliminary

objection raised was that since the first

respondent has in its favour a certificate under

sec.101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies

Act, 1960, then, all actions in pursuance

thereof could not be questioned by resorting to

section 91 of the said Act. In other words,

whether the dispute under sec.91 would be

maintainable to question the recovery

certificate or action in pursuance thereof

including execution proceedings.

4. That objection was over ruled by the Trial

Court on 12th April, 2007. Aggrieved by that

order an appeal was preferred by the first

respondent society which has been allowed by the

impugned judgment. In other words, the

-3-

objection to maintainability of the dispute has

been held. It has also been upheld that the

Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction to try and

entertain the dispute in question.

5. The petitioner/original disputant is

questioning the legality and validity of this

judgment.

6. After th