[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vasantraj Coopertive Credit Society ... vs Vatsala Dhaya Bhagat And Ors on 3 December, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:52774
905-wp4866-2025 with connected petitions final.doc
MPB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4866 OF 2025
Vasantraj Co-operative Credit Society
Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Vinod Gautam Pardeshi and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4867 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4875 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4872 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4874 OF 2025
Mr. Rajesh Parab for the petitioner in all writ petitions.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.
4 & 5 in Writ Petition No.4866 of 2025.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.
4 & 5 in Writ Petition No.4867 of 2025.
Ms. M. S. Shrivastava, AGP for the State - Respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 in Writ Petition No.4875 of 2025.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.
4 & 5 in Writ Petition No.4872 of 2025.
Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the State - Respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 in Writ Petition No. 4961 of 2025.
1
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2025 21:44:00 :::
905-wp4866-2025 with connected petitions final.doc
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for the State - Respondent
Nos. 4 & 5 in Writ Petition No. 4874 of 2025.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 3, 2025
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. All these petitions raise the same question. There is no
need to decide them separately. A single judgment will therefore
govern all of them.
3. The petitioner is a Co operative Credit Society. It granted
loans to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The borrowers executed all
documents required for sanction and disbursement of the loan.
The borrowers defaulted. The petitioner then invoked Section 101
of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act 1960 and sought a
recovery certificate. In the first round, the Deputy Registrar
rejected the request by order dated 19 July 2021. He held that the
documents filed by the society did not prove the amount claimed.
He also noted the difficulty in conducting a regular inquiry during
the period of the Covid 19 pandemic. On these grounds he refused
to issue the certificate.
4. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a
revision. The Revisional Authority allowed the revision on 16
January 2023. It found that the documents relied upon by the
borrowers were unrelated to the loan in question. It therefore
remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to
decide the proceedings afresh.
905-wp4866-2025 with connected petitions final.doc
5. After remand, the Deputy Registrar heard the parties. The
borrowers raised a defence that the matter involved disputed
questions of law and fact. They alleged that the accounts of the
society were not properly maintained. They pointed out suspicious
entries in the statement of account. They objected to the
documents relied upon by the society as they were not supported
by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. On
these grounds they sought a direction to relegate the society to a
dispute under Section 91 of the Act.
6. The Deputy Registrar dealt with the objections. He
recorded that the society had proved the loans that were
sanctioned. He found that the mortgage deeds were duly executed.
He noted that the loan amount was disbursed by cheque and that
the borrowers received it. He also held that the documents and
account extracts produced by the society made it possible to
ascertain the exact dues. He therefore issued the recovery
certificate against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
7. The borrowers challenged the certificate by filing a
revision. The Revisional Authority held that the disbursement of
the loan amount into the savings accounts of the borrowers was
contrary to the policy in force. It noted that the borrowers had
fixed deposits with the society. Despite this, the society charged
interest without considering the existence of the fixed deposits. It
therefore concluded that there was no compliance with Rule 86
clauses (a) to (f).
8. The legal position on when the Deputy Registrar may
905-wp4866-2025 with connected petitions final.doc
decline to act under Section 101 and direct the parties to a dispute
under Section 91 now stands clarified. This Court in Pimpri
Chinchwad Sahakari Bank Maryadit versus Arun Namdeo Pote
decided on 21 November 2025 has examined this issue in detail. In
paragraph numbers 36 to 48 of that judgment, the Court explained
the scope of the Deputy Registrar's powers. It held that relegation
to Section 91 is an exception. It is permitted only when the
defence raised by the borrower goes to the root of the transaction
and shows a genuine dispute requiring a full adjudication. The
Court cautioned that Section 101 is a summary remedy intended
to aid recovery of dues that stand admitted or are capable of ready
verification from the records of the society. The authority must
therefore examine whether the objections raised are substantial or
raised only to delay repayment.
9. Applying these principles, I find that the defence of the
borrowers and guarantors does not meet the standard laid down
by this Court. The objections raised by them relate to routine
issues of account maintenance or to entries described as suspicious
without any supporting material. Such objections do not convert a
straightforward loan recovery into a disputed matter within the
meaning of Section 91. The Deputy Registrar had already verified
the documents. He had recorded a clear finding that the loan was
sanctioned and disbursed and that the dues could be ascertained
from the material on record. In these circumstances the Revisional
Authority ought to have decided the revision on merits. It was not
justified in bypassing its duty by invoking Section 91.
10. The matter therefore requires correction. The following
905-wp4866-2025 with connected petitions final.doc
order is passed.
(i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b)
and the proceedings are remitted to the Revisional
Authority. It shall decide the revision filed by the
respondents on merits after giving due opportunity of
hearing to all contesting parties.
(ii) The dispute has remained pending for a considerable
period. The Divisional Joint Registrar Co operative
Societies Konkan Division Navi Mumbai shall dispose of
the revision within three months from today.
11. The writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
