Pornima Kiran Shah vs Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7893 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:22193

                                                                                           926-WP-9530-23.odt


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9530 OF 2023
                    Pornima Kiran Shah                      ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                    Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative
                    Societies, Pune Division, Pune and ors.               ...Respondents
                                                        .........
                    Mr. Manoj Patil for the Petitioner.
                    Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State- Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
                    Mr. Sidheshwar Biradar for Respondent No. 3.
                                                        .........
                                                      CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATED : 4 AUGUST 2023

P.C. :-

The petitioner had obtained loan from respondent No. 3- the Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank Mydt. As the petitioner defaulted in paying the said load, the respondent No. 3 instituted proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of the said loan amount.

2. It appears that during pendency of the said proceeding Liquidator came to be appointed on the respondent No. 3- Bank.

3. According to the petitioner, in view of the appointment of Liquidator, the respondent No. 3- Bank is not entitled to prosecute the proceedings in question.

                    MJ Jadhav                                                                  1 / 2





                                                                          926-WP-9530-23.odt

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Al-can Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra1.

5. I have perused the impugned order. It appears from the impugned order that it is the Liquidator only, who is prosecuting the proceedings in question. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. The Petition is dismissed.

                                                ( N.R. BORKAR, J. )




 1    2008(2) Mh.L.J. 250

 MJ Jadhav                                                                   2 / 2