Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

g). The judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi, 2012(4) SCC 307 (paragraph 13).

32. Learned counsel for the lender placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil vs. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Bank Limited, 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 315 (paragraphs 5 to 8 ) and would submit that a certificate issued under section 101 of the MCS Act cannot be construed as a dispute falling under any part of section 91 of the MCS Act and cannot be adjudicated upon in the said proceedings. In support of the submission that the recovery certificate under section 101 of the MCS Act is final and conclusive and thus there is no remedy under section 91 of the MCS Act to challenge such recovery certificate and the recovery certificate could be challenged, if any, under section 154 of the MCS Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Kedarling Vikas Seva Society vs. Dinkar D. Raut, 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 152.

34. Learned counsel tendered a copy of the said application under section 101 of the MCS Act with Rule 107(1)(e) filed by the lender before the Assistant Registrar. He submits that the demand notice dated 23rd May, 2003 issued by the lender had merged with the application under section 101 of the MCS Act filed on 18th November, 2004. It is submitted that by clever drafting, the borrowers could not take out pleadings out of the clutches of bar under section 91 of the MCS Act by only challenging the notice of demand dated 23rd May, 2003 in the dispute filed under section 91 of the MCS Act. He submits that the proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act could not be challenged in the dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. It is submitted that the Co-operative Court had thus no jurisdiction to try and entertain the alleged dispute on the date of filing such dispute and to pass an award by consent or otherwise.

47. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the borrowers had not challenged the recovery certificate issued by the learned Assistant Registrar in the said dispute filed under section 91 of the MCS Act. He submits that it is an admitted position that the recovery certificate was issued by the Assistant Registrar only after filing of the dispute by the borrowers under section 91 of the MCS Act and thus there was no question of the borrowers challenging the validity of the recovery certificate in the said dispute. He submits that by an order dated 30 th December, 2005, the recovery certificates earlier issued by the Assistant Registrar came to be recalled. The fresh recovery certificates were issued thereafter on 29th April, 2006. The consent terms were filed by the parties in the said dispute filed by the borrowers under section 91 of the MCS Act on 16 th July, 2006.

kvm WP435.13 alongwith connected matters

91. Insofar as judgment of this court in case of Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the lender is concerned, it is held by this court in the said judgment that the certificate issued under section 101 of the MCS Act cannot be challenged by filing a dispute under any part of section 91 of the MCS Act. There is no dispute about this proposition of law. However, in the facts of this case, the recovery certificate was not even issued when the disputes were filed by the borrowers under section 91 of the MCS Act nor such recovery certificates were challenged in such dispute nor the co-operative court had decided the validity of any such recovery certificate in the consent award rendered by the co-operative court. The judgment of this court in case of Vasundhara Ashokrao Patil (supra) is thus clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case and would not assist the case of the petitioner.