Kalindabai Navnath Sable And Another v. Central Registrar Co Operative Societies And Others
2025:BHC-AUG:31328-DB {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 WRIT PETITION NO. 12936 OF 2025 Kalindabai Navnath Sable And Another
VERSUS
Central Registrar Co Operative Societies And Others ......
Mr. S.D. Jayabhar, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. R.D. Sanap, Central Government Counsel for Respondent No.1 Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for State Authority ......
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
DATE : 13 NOVEMBER, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.
The present petition has been filed for directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to release the amount of the petitioners kept in the fixed deposit and savings bank accounts along with interest. 2.
Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners. Learned Central Government Counsel Mr. R.D. Sanap, waives the notice for respondent No.1.
3.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had deposited their hard-earned money with the respondent-Bank in fixed deposits as well as savings bank accounts; however, due to mismanagement, a Liquidator came to be appointed by the
{2} Government, and the petitioners are now not permitted to withdraw the amounts lying in their savings accounts or fixed deposits. The petitioners are in need of money, and therefore, the directions have been sought.
4.
It appears that the Central Government had taken a decision and, by order dated 04.11.2024, issued a notice and thereafter appointed a Liquidator under the provisions of Section 89(1) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies (MSCS) Act, 2002. We had asked the learned advocate for the petitioner to verify whether any offence had been registered. Accordingly, he has now placed on record a copy of the press release issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Mumbai Zonal Office, stating that immovable and movable assets valued at approximately Rs.1621.86 crore, belonging to the respondent-Bank, have been attached under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. He has also placed on record the order below Exhibit-1 in PMLA Special Case No.
535 of 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge designated as the Special Court under the PML Act, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. It further appears that Special Case No.
{3} Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act). Another Special Case bearing No. 100535 of 2025 has been filed before the Special Court under the MPID Act at Mumbai, and Special Case No. 160 of 2024 has been filed before the Special Court under the MPID Act at Beed. Therefore, when the matters are sub judice and there exist statutory provisions for disbursement of the amounts under the PMLA and the MPID Act, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The learned advocate for the petitioner then seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate Court.
5.
The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE S P Rane