[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Greater Bombay Co-Op.Bank Ltd. vs Shilpa Prakashchand Balar And Ors. on 24 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:13924
2-wp2901-2004.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2901 OF 2004
The Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Shilpa Prakashchand Balar & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Sameer R. Bhalekar for the petitioner.
ATUL Mrs. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP for respondent No.10-
GANESH
KULKARNI State.
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.03.24
16:11:50 +0530
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 24, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner bank
challenging the order dated 31 January 2004 passed by the
Revisional Authority. By the said order, the revision application
filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 came to be allowed and, as a
result, the earlier order of attachment of a locker was set aside.
The locker in question stood in the joint names of the father and
mother of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The Revisional Authority
appears to have accepted the case of the respondents that the
ornaments kept in the locker were not liable for attachment. The
reasoning given is that the great great grandfather of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 had, in the year 1997, bequeathed certain gold
ornaments weighing about 86.7 grams. It is further noted that the
father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was appointed as a Trustee in
respect of those ornaments. On that basis, the Revisional Authority
2-wp2901-2004.doc
concluded that the ornaments were trust property and, therefore,
they could not be attached for recovery proceedings initiated by
the bank.
2. At first glance, this reasoning may appear acceptable.
However, when examined carefully, it raises certain important
issues. Merely stating that a person is a trustee does not
automatically make the property immune from legal process. The
nature of the trust, the manner in which the property is held, and
whether it is clearly separated from personal assets, all these
aspects are required to be examined. There is nothing on record to
show that such detailed examination was carried out. The order
seems to proceed on a assumption without proper verification.
3. It further appears from the record that this Court had issued
Rule on 5 July 2017. Learned Advocate had entered appearance on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 3 August 2017. However,
today, none appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In such
a situation, the Court is required to proceed on the basis of
available record and the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner bank.
4. On careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the
material placed on record, it becomes clear that there is a
fundamental procedural defect. The respondents had filed a
revision application. However, before such revision could be
entertained and heard on merits, compliance with Section 154(2A)
of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was required. This
provision creates a condition precedent. In other terms, unless the
2-wp2901-2004.doc
requirement under this section is fulfilled, the Revisional Authority
does not get the jurisdiction to examine the matter on merits.
5. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had complied with this requirement.
Despite this, the Revisional Authority proceeded to hear the
revision and allowed it. This goes to the root of the matter. When a
statutory condition is ignored, the entire exercise becomes legally
unsustainable. The defect affects the authority of the Revisional
Authority itself to pass the order.
6. This position is now made clear by the recent judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Govindrao
Shankarrao Gaikwad vs. The Ganesh Cooperative Bank & Others,
Writ Petition No.4118 of 2014 and connected writ petitions,
decided on 4 March 2026. The Division Bench has categorically
held that compliance with Section 154(2A) of the MCS Act is
mandatory even in cases where the revision arises from
proceedings which are derivative in nature, such as those based on
a recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act. The
Division Bench has held that the requirement applies across the
board. Therefore, the respondents in the present case could not
have avoided compliance by taking any such plea. The law, as it
stands today, clearly requires such compliance before a revision is
entertained.
7. It is also necessary to note that what was challenged before
the Revisional Authority was an order passed under sub Rule 11 of
Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971.
2-wp2901-2004.doc
Such orders are part of recovery proceedings. The statutory
scheme governing these proceedings is strict and structured. When
the law provides a specific remedy of revision, it also attaches
conditions to it. If such conditions are ignored, it would defeat the
purpose of the recovery mechanism. In the present case, without
compliance with Section 154(2A), the revision application itself
was not maintainable. Therefore, the Revisional Authority ought
not to have entertained it at all. By doing so, it has committed an
error which is not merely procedural but jurisdictional in nature.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned
order dated 31 January 2004 cannot be sustained in law. The
Revisional Authority has proceeded without ensuring compliance
of a mandatory statutory requirement.
9. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. Rule is
made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). There shall
be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
