← Library
Bombay High CourtCAO/1129/2016rejected at admission stage

Shri. Chandrabhan Maroti Chunchwar v. The Maha. State Co-Op. Housing Finance Corp. Ltd., Mumbai,Thr. Special Recovery Officer Raviraj And

2016-07-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice B. P. Dharmadhikari,Hon'Ble Kum. Justice Indira Jain2 pages

Order 0507cao1129.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

C.A.O.NO.1129/2016 & M.C.A.ST.NO. 10846/2016 IN W.P.NO.2601/2015. Shri Chandrabhan Maroti Chunchwar -VERSUSThe Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and others. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : JULY 05, 2016.

Heard Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. K.S. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for non-applicant nos. 2 to 4.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant points out that there is delay of about 2 days in filing review petition. He further adds that Writ Petition No. 2601/2015 has been disposed of on 04.04.2016 without hearing the applicant, and applicant was respondent no.4 in that matter. According to him, respondent no.4 has already cleared the loan liability and therefore, no action under Section 100 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies

Order 0507cao1129.16 Act can be continued or initiated against him. 3.

On 04.04.2016, we have taken note of the fact that there was no appearance for respondent no.4 though he was served.

4.

We have further found that a recovery certificate under Section 156 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was already issued against respondent no.4, and it needed to be executed under Section 100 of the Act. Hence expressly mentioning that we are passing the orders without prejudice to rival contentions of the parties, we have only asked the concerned authority to proceed further in pending proceedings under Section 100 of the Act.

5.

All contentions of respondent no.4 are therefore open and can be looked into by the said Authority. We therefore, find that the present attempt is misconceived and accordingly the same is rejected. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.