Bombay High Court
Pandit Vasantrav Ingole vs The Divisional Joint Registrar Co Op Soc ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:40952
909 WP 12284-25.doc
Ashish
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ASHISH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by ASHISH
SAHEBRAO
SAHEBRAO MHASKE
MHASKE Date: 2025.09.26
15:37:55 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.12284 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12287 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12324 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12325 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12327 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12414 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11843 OF 2025
Pandit Vasantrav Ingole ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Divisional Joint Registrar CO Op.
Soc. And ors ... Respondents
Mr. Rushikesh Jadhav i/b Mr. Vipul K Shah, for the
petitioner in all petitions.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for State in WP No. 12284 of
2025.
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for State in WP No.12287 of
2025.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for State in WP No.12414 of 2025.
Smt. M.S. Shrivastava, AGP for State in WP No.12324
of 2025.
Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP for State in WP No.12325 of
2025.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for State in WP No.12327 of
2025.
Ms. Sulbha D Chipade, AGP for State in WP No.11843
1
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:33:29 :::
909 WP 12284-25.doc
of 2025.
Mr. Prashant Hagare, for respondent nos. 2 and 3 in all
petitions.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 26, 2025
P.C.:
1. These writ petitions challenge the revisional order passed by
the Revisional Authority, which entertained a challenge to the
order of the Registrar fixing the upset price under Rule 107 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "MCS
Act").
2. The petitioner-borrower has questioned the fixation of upset
price on several grounds. One of the main grounds is that the
Government approved valuer had certified the market value of the
property as more than Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. However, relying upon
the valuation certificate produced by the Society, the Registrar
fixed the upset price at Rs. 3,23,00,000/-.
3. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision application
holding that the petitioner had not complied with Section 154(2A)
of the MCS Act.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 810 of 2005 (Pravin
Yashwant Danawade vs. Jawali Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.) decided
on 16 March 2005. In that case, this Court held that compliance
with Section 154(2A) arises only when the certificate under
909 WP 12284-25.doc
Section 101 of the MCS Act itself is challenged. He further pointed
out the order of the co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No. 4118 of
2014, dated 28 April 2014, wherein a reference has been made on
the question whether a person challenging consequential action
after issuance of the Section 101 certificate is required to deposit
50% of the amount. That reference is still pending before the
Division Bench. On this basis, it was submitted that compliance
with Section 154(2A) was not necessary in the present case.
5. The issue that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether,
during the pendency of the reference before the larger Bench, the
requirement of depositing 50% under Section 154(2A) will govern
the present proceedings or not.
6. The governing law for deciding cases during the interregnum
has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Union Territory of
Ladakh and Others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference
and Another (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140). The Supreme Court
expressed concern that several High Courts were refraining from
deciding matters merely because the leading judgment of the
Supreme Court was referred to a larger Bench or a review petition
was pending. The Court also noticed instances where High Courts
declined to follow binding precedent on the ground that its
correctness had been doubted by a later co-ordinate Bench. To
remove this uncertainty, the Supreme Court laid down a clear
position in law. It held that High Courts must proceed to decide
matters on the basis of the law as it stands. Unless the Supreme
Court specifically directs otherwise, the pendency of a reference or
review petition is no ground to keep matters undecided. Further, a
909 WP 12284-25.doc
High Court cannot refuse to follow a judgment of the Supreme
Court by pointing out that its correctness has been doubted by
another Bench. Most importantly, when faced with conflicting
decisions of co-equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the judgment
delivered first in point of time will prevail and bind the High
Courts. This principle was reiterated by the Constitution Bench in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16
SCC 680. The High Courts are bound to apply this principle with
due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case before
them.
7. In the present case, reliance was placed by the petitioner on
the decision of this Court in Pravin Yashwant Danawade v. Jawali
Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors., Writ Petition No. 810 of 2005, decided
on 16 March 2005. However, it is pertinent to note that while
delivering the said judgment, this Court had not considered the
earlier binding precedent of this Court in The Greater Bombay Co-
operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. Dhillon P. Shah and Ors. , 2004(1)
ALL MR 25. The law declared in Greater Bombay was therefore the
earlier pronouncement and continued to bind, unless overruled by
a larger Bench.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union
Territory of Ladakh (supra), the earlier binding precedent in
Greater Bombay (supra) must prevail over the later judgment in
Pravin Yashwant Danawade. Judicial discipline requires that when
two conflicting views exist, the one rendered first in point of time
is to be followed.
909 WP 12284-25.doc
9. Applying this settled principle, the Revisional Authority was
right in dismissing the revision application for want of compliance
with Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act. Its approach cannot be
faulted as it was in consonance with the binding precedent in
Greater Bombay (supra).
10. Therefore, I find no merit in these writ petitions. No case for
interference is made out.
11. The writ petitions stand dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
