Bombay High Court
RUPEE CO-OPERATTIVE BANK LTD.versusSUDHIR SHAM PADHYE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court dismissed the review petitions, finding no error in the judgment under review, and clarified that apportionment of individual liability under Section 88 must be based on evidence, not a fixed formula.
Summary
The High Court considered multiple review petitions filed by Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited after the Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the Court. The petitioners argued that paragraph 68(vi) of the earlier judgment required a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section 88 and that mens rea was not necessary, seeking clarification and an extension of time for the fresh inquiry. The respondents contended that the earlier judgment correctly identified deficiencies in the determination of individual liability and that no error warranted review. The Court held that the submissions did not demonstrate any error apparent on the record, but clarified that liability under Section 88 must be decided on the basis of evidence without a fixed formula, and that the fresh inquiry should consider all relevant material. It also ordered a one‑year extension for completing the inquiry and directed pending attachment applications to be decided within four weeks. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the review petitions should be entertained despite the Supreme Court's liberty to file them
- Whether paragraph 68(vi) of the judgment under review mandates a fixed formula for apportioning individual liability under Section 88
- Whether mens rea is required to attract liability under Section 88 as per paragraph 68(iv)
- Whether the findings of the earlier judgment regarding individual liability are erroneous
- Whether the time for completing the fresh inquiry should be extended
- How the fresh inquiry should determine individual liability and handle pending attachment applications
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Section 88
- individual liability
- cooperative bank
- review jurisdiction
- apportionment of liability
- attachment of property
- fresh inquiry
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules
Judgment
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.100 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.20911 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6129 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
ATUL
GANESH V/s.
KULKARNI
Vilas Gopalkrishna Shouche … Respondent
Digitally signed by
WITH
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.08.19
12:17:16 +0530
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12610 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11957 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12613 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sanjay S. Bhalerao & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12646 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11804 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12652 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sudhir Shreeram Desai … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12656 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.14454 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12659 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
1
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
V/s.
Prakash Prabhakar Kulkarni,
since deceased through LRs. … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12662 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9852 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12665 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Rajkumar Manikchand Nahar … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12667 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.10750 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12670 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sanjeev Bhaskar Pathak … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.110 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6174 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Mahendraji Gokuldas Doshi … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12693 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11833 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12694 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
2
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
Suhas Govind Kale … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.106 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6152 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Satish Balkrishna Gandhe … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12715 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11139 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12720 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Mohan Digambar Deshpande … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12717 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2876 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12719 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sanjay Vishwanath Sontakke, since
deceased through LHRs Pooja
Sanjay Sontakke & Another … Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.109 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6170 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Shripad Ganesh Palsule … Respondent
WITH
3
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12725 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11143 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12730 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Late Sitaram Dattatraya Panchpor
through LHRs Rupali Sitaram
Panchpor & Others … Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12731 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11235 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12734 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Chandrakant Digambar Damle … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.102 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6135 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sudhir Sham Padhye … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12736 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11233 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12738 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Subhash Vanmalidas Gujrathi … Respondent
WITH
4
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12750 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11228 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12757 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Vilas Vishnu Khaladkar … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.108 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6164 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Shirish Vasant Beke … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12767 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11234 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12774 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Shrikant Krishnaji Kanade … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.104 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6148 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Yeshwant Ganesh Kavade … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.107 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6163 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
5
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
V/s.
Prashant Ghanshyam Gore … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12802 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9990 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12806 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Ravindranath Laxman Mundhe & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
REVIEW PETITION NO.105 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sanjiv Dattatray Wagh … Respondent
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.12803 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11142 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12808 OF 2026
Rupee Cooperative Bank Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Ramakant Waman Bhalerao … Respondent
Mr. Pramod Patil with Mr. Ajit Hon, Mr. Dhairyasheel
Kale and Mr. Ramesh Deshmukh i/by PNP & Associates
for the petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. S.S. Panchpor with Mr. Parmeshwar Andil for
original petitioner/respondent in RPW.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 18, 2026
6
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
P.C.:
1. The petitioners have filed the present review petitions
pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court while
disposing of the Special Leave Petitions filed against the original
judgment of this Court dated 17 October 2025.
2. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate, invited my attention to the order
passed by the Supreme Court on 20 April 2026. He submitted that,
in paragraph 3 of the said order, the Supreme Court granted
liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court by filing review
petitions. He invited my attention to paragraph 68(vi) of the
judgment under review and submitted that, in the absence of any
formula or clear basis, it may be difficult for the Authorized Officer
to determine and apportion the individual liability of the members
or other persons responsible for the alleged loss. According to him,
in the fresh proceedings, the concerned persons may therefore
raise a dispute regarding the actual quantum of loss and the extent
to which such loss can be attributed to each of them. He submitted
that, in view of the observations contained in clause (iv) of
paragraph 68, proof of mens rea is not necessary for attracting
proceedings under Section 88. According to him, therefore, the
observations in the judgment to the effect that liability becomes
personal when the concerned member acted with bad faith or
dishonest intention require reconsideration in the present review
proceedings.
3. Mr. Patil submitted that, in the event this Court is not
inclined to entertain the review petitions, the period granted for
7
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
completion of the inquiry may be extended by one year from today.
He states that the Authorized Officer will initiate and proceed with
the inquiry in accordance with the directions contained in the
judgment under review within one month from today.
4. Per contra, Mr. Panchpor, learned Advocate appearing for the
employees, submitted that this Court has recorded a clear finding
in paragraph 116 of the judgment under review that the order
passed by the Authorized Officer does not contain any clear or
specific finding showing what particular act or omission of each
petitioner resulted in financial loss to the Bank. This Court has
observed that the findings were recorded in general terms and that
the persons concerned were substantially dealt with together
without proper consideration of their individual roles. He
submitted that a perusal of the report and order passed by the
Authorized Officer would show that the said observations of this
Court are based on the material available on record. According to
him, the petitioners seeking review have not been able to point out
any material showing that the said factual finding of this Court is
incorrect or that any relevant material was overlooked while
recording the said finding.
5. He submitted that this Court, in paragraph 66 of the
judgment under review, has considered the duties and functions of
a Manager of a cooperative bank. This Court has observed that the
ultimate responsibility for sanctioning a loan rests with the
Managing Committee or other competent sanctioning authority. A
recommendation made by a Manager, by, cannot result in personal
liability under Section 88. It is necessary to examine the nature of
8
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
his duties, the authority exercised by him, the material available
before him, and the part actually played by him in the transaction.
According to the learned Advocate, unless the recommendation is
shown to be affected by fraud, collusion, suppression of material
facts, or any other established act amounting to misfeasance or
breach of duty, mere participation in processing or recommending
a proposal would not, by, justify fastening liability under Section
88. He submitted that, after the original order passed by the
Authorized Officer fixing individual liability was set aside, the
employees concerned, or in appropriate cases their legal
representatives, have filed applications for recalling or vacating the
orders of attachment passed in respect of their immovable
properties. Those applications are stated to be pending. According
to him, the review petitions do not disclose any error apparent on
the face of the record or any other ground which would justify
exercise of the limited review jurisdiction of this Court. He,
therefore, submitted that the review petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
Advocates appearing for all the parties. I have gone through the
order dated 20 April 2026 passed by the Supreme Court, by which
liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach this Court by
filing review petitions. I have considered the grounds on which
review is sought, and the findings recorded in the judgment dated
17 October 2025, which is under review. After considering the
matter as a whole, I do not find any sufficient reason for
interfering with or reviewing the judgment under review. However,
9
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
certain clarification appears necessary regarding the manner in
which the fresh inquiry has to proceed, particularly about
individual liability, apportionment of such liability and the pending
applications concerning attachment of properties.
7. At the beginning, it is necessary to keep in mind that the
scope of review jurisdiction is limited. A review is not another
appeal. The entire matter cannot be again argued only because
one party feels that some other view was possible. A person asking
for review has to show some clear error which is apparent from the
record, or any other ground which is recognised by law for
exercise of review jurisdiction. The liberty granted by the Supreme
Court to approach this Court by filing review petitions cannot
mean that every submission which was made earlier has to be
reopened and decided again. Therefore, these review petitions
have to be considered within the limited scope of review
jurisdiction.
8. Mr. Patil has relied upon paragraph 3 of the order dated 20
April 2026 passed by the Supreme Court and submitted that liberty
was granted to the petitioners to approach this Court by filing
review petitions. There is no dispute about this position. It is
because of such liberty that the present review petitions are before
this Court. However, merely because liberty was granted to file a
review petition, it does not mean that there is any error in the
judgment. This Court is still required to examine whether the
judgment dated 17 October 2025 suffers from any error which can
be corrected while exercising review jurisdiction.
10
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
9. The main submission of Mr. Patil is based upon paragraph
68(vi) of the judgment under review. According to him, in absence
of any fixed formula, the Authorized Officer may find difficulty in
dividing or apportioning the individual liability of persons who
may be found responsible for the loss. He submits that the
concerned persons may, therefore, raise an issue regarding the
actual loss caused by them and regarding the extent to which such
loss can be attributed to each one of them.
10. In my view, this submission by does not show any error in
the judgment under review. Paragraph 68(vi) was never intended
to mean that individual liability can be fixed without any factual
basis or without material. It was not intended to lay down that
there must be one fixed mathematical formula for dividing liability
in every case. Liability under Section 88 will depend upon the facts
of the particular transaction and the actual role played by the
person concerned. Therefore, the manner in which responsibility is
to be apportioned may differ from one transaction to another
transaction. The observation in paragraph 68(vi) cannot be
understood to mean that such apportionment is impossible.
Difficulty in deciding the extent of liability is one thing. Absence of
power to decide such liability is another thing. Similarly, absence
of any fixed formula cannot mean that the Authorized Officer is
unable to decide the question at all. The Authorized Officer has to
examine the evidence available in the inquiry and thereafter
decide whether any particular person is responsible and, if such
person is found responsible, to what extent.
11
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
11. Therefore, while conducting the fresh inquiry, the Authorized
Officer shall consider the relevant evidence available on record for
deciding the individual responsibility and for apportioning the
liability, if any. Such material may include the resolutions by which
loans or other facilities were sanctioned, the loan proposals,
appraisal notes, recommendations made by the concerned officers,
the powers and authority of the persons concerned, documents
showing approval or rejection at different levels and such other
relevant material as may be brought on record. The exact role of
every person cannot be decided only by seeing the name or
designation of his post. What is required to be seen is the actual
duty performed by him and the part played by him in the
particular transaction.
12. For example, a loan proposal may have been processed by
one officer, thereafter recommended by another officer and finally
sanctioned by the Managing Committee or some other competent
authority. In such a case, the Authorized Officer will have to
examine the role of every such person separately. Mere processing
of a proposal may not establish liability. The matter will depend
upon what duty was required to be performed by such person,
what material was available before him, what he actually did or
failed to do and whether such act or omission attracts the
provisions of Section 88 of the MCS Act.
13. The resolutions sanctioning the loans may be important
material for deciding who took the final decision and what role
was played by different officers at the earlier stages. Similarly, the
relevant Loan Rules, Bye-laws, circulars and internal procedure
12
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
may require consideration for deciding what duty was cast upon
the concerned employee or officer. The Authorized Officer shall
consider all such material on the basis of evidence.
14. The clarification made in the present order does not change
or modify the judgment under review. It only makes clear that
paragraph 68(vi) has to be applied on the basis of evidence
available in the inquiry. The judgment has not prescribed any fixed
formula for apportionment of liability because the facts, duties and
roles may be different in different transactions. The Authorized
Officer shall decide the matter on the basis of the evidence and
record reasons showing why a particular person is found
responsible and why a particular amount of liability, if any, is fixed
against him.
15. Mr. Patil has next submitted that, in view of clause (iv) of
paragraph 68, mens rea is not required to be proved for attracting
proceedings under Section 88. According to him the observations
in the judgment relating to bad faith or dishonest intention require
reconsideration. This submission does not persuade me to exercise
review jurisdiction.
16. Section 88 uses different expressions. A person may be
proceeded against if he has “misapplied or retained, or become
liable or accountable for, any money or property of the society” or
if he “has been guilty of misfeasance or breach of trust in relation
to the society.” These different expressions cannot be treated as if
all of them require exactly the same facts or the same nature of
proof. The material necessary for establishing misapplication or
13
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
retention may not be the same as the material relevant for
deciding misfeasance or breach of trust. The observations in
paragraph 68(iv) are required to be read in the context in which
they were made. At the same time, those observations cannot
mean that any employee or officer can be made personally liable
without establishing the particular act or omission alleged against
him and its connection with the loss suffered by the society.
17. The requirement of Section 88 remains that the liability has
to be based upon the particular conduct established against the
person concerned. Depending upon the nature of allegation, the
Authorized Officer will have to decide whether the material shows
misapplication, retention, liability, or accountability in respect of
money or property, misfeasance or breach of trust. At the same
time, the inquiry cannot proceed without establishing the personal
role and responsibility of the person against whom liability is
proposed. Therefore, the submission that paragraph 68(iv)
requires reconsideration does not disclose any error apparent from
the record. The judgment under review has to be read as a whole.
The findings recorded in the judgment show that the individual
role of the person, the duties attached to his post, the evidence
supporting the allegation and the connection between his conduct
and the alleged loss caused to the Bank are all required to be
examined.
18. Mr. Panchpor, learned Advocate appearing for the employees,
has relied upon paragraph 116 of the judgment under review. He
submitted that this Court had recorded a clear finding that the
order passed by the Authorized Officer did not contain any clear or
14
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
specific finding showing what particular act or omission of each
petitioner caused financial loss to the Bank. He submitted that the
findings were recorded in general terms by treating different
persons without properly considering their separate roles.
19. After considering this submission, I find that the said finding
was one of the important reasons for setting aside the earlier
orders and remanding the matter. The finding was recorded after
examining the manner in which the orders were passed. The
review petitioners have not pointed out any particular material
which was completely missed or overlooked by this Court and
which, if considered, would show that the finding recorded in
paragraph 116 was clearly incorrect.
20. Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised only because the
review petitioners want this Court to again examine the entire
material in detail and take another possible view. Whether the
findings of the Authorized Officer were sufficient to establish
liability of every individual was one of the matters already
considered in the judgment under review. This Court found serious
deficiencies in the manner in which individual responsibility was
determined. That conclusion cannot be reopened merely by again
referring to the same material which was available in the original
proceedings.
21. Mr. Panchpor has relied upon paragraph 66 of the judgment
under review. It was submitted that this Court had considered the
role and duties of a Manager of a cooperative bank and had
observed that the responsibility of sanctioning a loan rests with the
15
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
competent sanctioning authority. It was observed that a mere
recommendation by a Manager cannot result in liability unless the
facts disclose conduct which can attract Section 88.
22. This submission has to be understood properly. Paragraph 66
does not give complete protection to every Manager or employee
merely because the final sanction was given by the Managing
Committee. The role of the Manager has to be decided from the
material on record.
23. The actual role, duty, authority, and conduct of the person
concerned will have to be separately examined in respect of every
charge and on the basis of evidence.
24. Mr. Panchpor has pointed out that, after the earlier order
fixing individual liability was set aside, the concerned employees
and, in some cases, their legal representatives have filed
applications for recalling or releasing the attachment of their
immovable properties. Those applications are stated to be pending.
The question regarding attachment has to be considered in view of
the present position of the proceedings. Since the order dated 2
February 2016 passed by the Authorized Officer and the appellate
order have already been set aside, and the matter has been
remanded for fresh inquiry, the applications filed by the employees
or their legal representatives cannot remain pending without any
decision for an indefinite period. The authority concerned shall
decide those applications according to law.
25. The competent authority shall, therefore, consider and
decide the applications filed by the employees and/or their legal
16
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
representatives for release, recalling or modification of attachment
after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Such
applications shall be decided on their own merits and in
accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today.
26. Mr. Patil has requested that, if the review petitions are not
entertained, the period granted for completion of the fresh inquiry
may be extended by one year from today. It is stated on behalf of
the petitioners that the Authorized Officer will start the inquiry in
terms of the judgment under review within one month from today.
27. Considering the nature of the proceedings, the number of
persons involved and the requirement of separately examining the
role of each person and the material relating to the concerned
transactions, some time appears to be necessary. The fresh inquiry
has to be conducted in accordance with Section 88 and Rule 72. In
the circumstances, the time for completion of the fresh inquiry is
extended by one year from today. The Authorized Officer shall
make all reasonable efforts to complete the inquiry within the said
period. All parties shall cooperate in the inquiry and shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
28. It is clarified that, while conducting the fresh inquiry, the
Authorized Officer shall strictly follow the directions contained in
the judgment dated 17 October 2025. The clarification made in the
present order regarding paragraph 68(vi) shall be kept in mind.
The question of apportionment of individual liability shall be
decided on the basis of evidence available on record, including the
relevant resolutions sanctioning the loans, wherever applicable,
17
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
and other relevant material showing the role, duties, authority, and
participation of the person concerned.
29. The Authorized Officer shall not treat the observations in the
judgment under review as a final finding that any particular
employee, Manager, member of the Managing Committee or any
other person is either liable or not liable.
30. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error
apparent from the record or any other sufficient ground for
exercising review jurisdiction. The submissions made by Mr. Patil
do justify a clarification regarding the manner in which paragraph
68(vi) is to be applied. They justify extension of time for
completing the fresh inquiry. However, those submissions do not
justify reopening or reviewing the findings and directions
contained in the judgment dated 17 October 2025.
31. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. It is clarified
that the question of apportionment of individual liability, as
referred to in paragraph 68(vi) of the judgment dated 17 October
2025, shall be decided by the Authorized Officer on the basis of
evidence on record. Such evidence shall include the relevant
resolutions sanctioning the loans or other facilities, wherever
applicable, and other relevant material showing the role, duties,
authority and participation of every person concerned.
32. The applications filed by the employees and/or their legal
representatives for release, recalling or modification of attachment
of immovable properties shall be decided by the competent
authority according to law, after giving opportunity of hearing to
18
5-rpw100-2026 & connected.doc
the concerned parties, within four weeks from today.
33. The period for completion of the fresh inquiry directed by
the judgment dated 17 October 2025 is extended by one year from
today. The Authorized Officer shall proceed with and complete the
inquiry in accordance with the judgment under review, the
clarifications made in the present order, Section 88 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 72 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961.
34. In view of disposal of the review petitions, all pending
interlocutory applications stand disposed off.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
19
Checking your session…