Bombay High Court
Nakshatra Towers, A Partnership ... vs The Nandura Urban Cooperative ... on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 wp2083.20+4
matters.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2083/2020
(Nakshatra Towers through Partner and anr vrs. The Nandura Urban
Co.Op. Bank Ltd and others)
WRIT PETITION NO. 2037/2020
(Shekhar Bhagwandas Nagpal vrs. The Nandura Urban Co.Op. Bank
Ltd and others)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3145/2020
(Shekhar Bhagwandas Nagpal, Partner of Nakshatra Towers vrs. The
Nandura Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd and others)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3146/2020
(Shekhar Bhagwandas Nagpal, Guarantor of Krishna Towers vrs. The
Nandura Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd and others)
WRIT PETITION NO. 3147/2020
(Shekhar Bhagwandas Nagpal, Guarantor of Annapurna Veg Plaza vrs.
The Nandura Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd and others)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Smita Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners
Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Shri S.R.Dambhare, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/08/2021
1] Smt. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners in all
the petitions, contends that in the proceedings initiated under Section
101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, for issuance
of revenue recovery certificate (RRC hereinafter), a preliminary
objection as to territorial jurisdiction of Registrar at Nandura, to
entertain the application, was taken, which has been rejected by the
impugned order dated 05.08.2020. It is her contention, that the
documents of loan between the petitioner and the respondent no.1
bank, have been executed at Shegaon, the disbursement is also at
Shegaon and the petitioner also resides at Shegaon, which all was
2 wp2083.20+4
matters.odt
done by the branch of respondent no.1 bank located at Shegaon.
She, therefore, submits that the Registrar at Nandura merely on the
ground of the resolution to proceed against the petitioner, having been
passed at Nandura, cannot assume jurisdiction. The basic issue in all
these petitions therefore, is whether the Civil Procedure Code is
applicable and whether the concept of territorial jurisdiction is
applicable and available in the proceedings initiated under Section
101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for the purposes of
issuing an RRC.
2] The next contention restricted to Writ Petition No. 2083
of 2020 is, that the RRC has been issued without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in contravention of the
direction, issued by the Hon. Apex Court as well as the High Court, on
account of Covid-19 pandemic from time to time. To substantiate this,
learned counsel contends that the objection to territorial jurisdiction
was rejected on 05.08.2020 and the matter thereafter was posted on
12.08.2020 for filing of oral/written statement/reply. On 12.08.2020
an application for time was filed by the petitioner contending that the
counsel dealing with the matter, Mr. Bhutada, was down with Corona
and therefore, was unable to appear, which came to be rejected and
the RRC came to be passed on 20.08.2020.
3] In the other matters, there is no such challenge to RRC.
4] In so far as the challenge raising preliminary objection,
the learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Tajne, submits that there
is no such provision in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
which provides for territorial jurisdiction in the matter of issuance of
RRC under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
3 wp2083.20+4
matters.odt
Act. He submits that the concept of territorial jurisdiction is alien to
Sec. 101 and therefore, justifies the impugned order dated
05.08.2020.
5] In so far as the challenge to the RRC in Writ Petition
No.2083 of 2020 is concerned, learned counsel submits that there is
an alternate remedy available u/s 154 of Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, which has to be availed by the petitioner, instead of
laying challenge to the same before this Court.
6] In rebuttal, Mrs. Deshapnde, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there are instances where a direct challenge to
the RRC is permissible before this Court under its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. She also, for this purpose, relies upon
Rule 86 (A to E) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, to
contend that since there is violation of the same, the jurisdiction of
this Court can always be invoked.
7] Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
at this stage seeks time to place certain judgments relating to issue of
territorial jurisdiction on record. List the matter on 26.08.2020 for further
consideration.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
