Advocates:
['BHOKARIKAR MADHAV M', 'PATIL VIJAY B AND V S SONAWANE', '', 'G P', 'R/ SERVED']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.6113 OF 2012

VIJAY HARI PATIL

PETITIONER

VERSUS

SHRI P.K.ANNA PATIL JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,

NANDURBAR (LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS

Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vijay B.Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr.V.G.Shelke, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 13/01/2015

PER COURT :

1.

This Court, by its order dated 30/07/2012, had appreciated

the submissions of the petitioner and had granted an ad-interim

protection on the condition of depositing Rs.2,00,000/- in this Court.

The said amount was deposited on 21/08/2012.

2.

Learned Advocate for the respondent Bank has pointed out

from page No.56 that the recovery certificate issued u/s 101 of the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (For short, M.C.S.Act) dated

02/03/2007 clearly indicates that the petitioner had appeared in the

proceedings, had participated in the proceedings and had prayed for

time to repay the loan taken, in installments. Mr.Bhokarikar,

khs/Jan. 2015/6113-12

2

learned Advocate for the petitioner concedes that the loan has been

taken by the petitioner.

3.

In paragraph No.8 of the memo of the petition, the petitioner

has made a categorical statement that he gathered knowledge about

the proceedings u/s 101, only after he received the notice dated

17/01/2012, which is a demand for repayment of the outstanding

loan, failing which coercive steps were to be taken by the Special

Recovery Officer as against the properties mortgaged.

4.

For clarity, paragraph No.8 is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“The petitioner submits that for the first time when he received

the notice dated 17/01/2012 from the respondent No.2, he

comes to know that the proceeding under Section 101 was

initiated against him and concluded illegally in issuing the

certificate in favour of the respondent Bank which is totally

surprising to him. Hence it is very clear that no procedure was

followed as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,

1961 and the Rules thereunder. Considering the present

situation, the certificate is not at all binding on the petitioner nor

the respondent Bank can recover any amount on the basis of the

said so called certificate.”

5.

Learned Advocate Mr.V.B.Patil, therefore, submits that the

khs/Jan. 2015/6113-12

3

petitioner has misled this Court for obtaining ad-interim protection

by stating that he never knew anything about the proceedings u/s

101 and that he was totally surprised by the demand notice dated

17/01/2012 pursuant to such proceedings conducted u/s 101.

6.

It, therefore, clearly appears that the petitioner has

intentionally suppressed the fact of his participation in the

proceedings conducted u/s 101 in 2007. A specific query was put to

the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count and the reply was

that the petitioner has made the said statement in paragraph No.8 of

the petition.

7.

The petitioner has not challenged the certificate dated

02/03/2007 issued u/s 101 of the M.C.S.Act in this petition, which

the petitioner can challenge u/s 154 r/w section 2(A) of the

M.C.S.Act, 1960.

8.

The Apex Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P.,

2013(2) SCC 398 has observed as regards the conduct of litigants

suppressing material facts from the Court in order to obtain reliefs,

as under :-

“34.

It has been consistently stated by this Court that the

khs/Jan. 2015/6113-12

4

entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the

pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is

the basis of the justice-delivery system.

35.

With the passage of time, it has been realised that people

used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of

the consequences but that practice n