Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 91 mcs act in Tarulata Amritlal Bava vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. Co-Op ... on 2 January, 2023Matching Fragments
3. In July, 2013, Amritlal filed a Dispute bearing no. 125 of 2013 before the Cooperative Court No. II under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "MCS Act") against the bank inter alia raising issues in relation to a fraud played by the Branch Manager of the bank namely one Mr. Mahendra Bhoir. It appears that in August, 2013 the bank also filed a First Information Report with the Mulund Police Station bearing No. 338 of 2013 against Amritlal, as also against the Branch Manager Mr. Mahendra Bhoir and one Mr. Tejas Lodaya in regard to the fraud as perpetrated by these accused against the bank. The FIR was subject matter of investigation by the Economic Offences Wing, which investigated the complaint in regard to the flow of funds and the manner in which the same was routed to the accounts of Mr. Tejas Lodaya & Ors. It however 02 January 2023
20. Mr. Kapadia's contention that the remedy of revision although espoused by the petitioner was not an effective remedy for the reason that the petitioner has alleged fraud and the said plea of fraud was not considered by the Deputy Registrar, while issuing recovery certificate, also cannot be accepted, for more that one reason. It is quite clear that the plea of fraud to avoid liability towards the bank was also simultaneously canvassed from the year 2013 by Amritlal/ petitioner's husband, including in proceedings under Section 91 of the MCS Act, being a dispute before the Cooperative Court against the bank and other parties. The petitioner is also asserting the same plea although in the capacity as a guarantor. In my opinion, once the borrower/Amritlal himself was not in a position to successfully canvass any such plea and obtain any order in the substantive proceedings, it cannot be heard from the petitioner, that as such plea was not appropriately considered by the 02 January 2023
501.IA30585_2022.DOC Deputy Registrar in the proceedings of Section 101 of the MCS Act, this petiton be held to be maintainable. It needs to be stated that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar under section 101 of the MCS Act was certainly a limited jurisdiction. It is not the jurisdiction in the nature of proceedings under section 91 of the MCS Act, which would take within its ambit an adjudication on the merits of any such contention on any allegation of an unestablished fraud, which was being canvassed by Amritlal.