Shri. Suresh Shamrao Patil And ANR v. The Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-Op. Soc. Kolhapur And ORS

1 912.7426.19 wp.doc ISM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7426 OF 2019 Shri. Suresh Shamrao Patil .....Petitioner V/s.

The Divisional Jt. Registrar .....Respondents Co­Op. Soc. Kolhapur and others Mr. Subhash V. Gutte for the Petitioner Mr. S. L. Babar AGP for the State Mr. Amit Borkar for respondent no. 4 CORAM :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE :

AUGUST 1, 2019.

P.C.

Heard. Petitioner suffered recovery proceedings pursuant to provisions of Section 101 of The Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short) which order I am informed has attained finality.

After auction proceedings pursuant to provisions of Rule 107 of Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Rules, 1961 ('the Rules' for short) was initiated, the petitioner preferred a Revision questioning the same

2 912.7426.19 wp.doc on the following grounds:

(a) that as contemplated under Sub­ Rule 13 & 14 of Rule 107 of the Rules, auction notice of 30 days was not given; (b) amount of 85% of the bid amount was not deposited within the stipulated period and;

(c) that the auction was approved by authority who was not competent in law to do so.

The claim put forth by the petitioner are disputed by the respondent on the following grounds.

(a) Auction notice was served on the petitioner on 20/04/2012 and same was published in the newspaper on 27/05/2012. (b) Pursuant to auction which was concluded in 2012, already two Sale Deeds are executed and as such, petition has rendered infructuous.

Considered rival submissions.

The fact that petitioner has not questioned recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act is not disputed and that being so,

3 912.7426.19 wp.doc same amounts to admitting liability.

In the wake of above, it is noticed that there is sufficient compliance of Sub­Rule 11(e) of Rule 107 of the Rules as the respondent issued auction notice to the petitioner on 20/04/2012 and same was published in the newspaper on 27/05/2012. As such, there was more than period of 30 days qua date of service of notice and the actual auction.

Apart from the fact that entire consideration towards bid amount is received by the respondent, final Sale Deeds are already executed by the respondent of the property in question.

The contention of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount as was adjudicated under Section 101 of the Act, at this stage cannot be accepted, in view of aforesaid developments.

Petition lacks merit, stands dismissed.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]