Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

LAXMI J. PATELversusDISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (2) AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

A payment made under protest does not constitute acceptance of liability, and the revision application must be heard on its merits.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 26 June 2025 of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-II, which dismissed Revision Application No. 299/2025 on the ground that the petitioner’s full payment indicated acceptance of liability. The petitioner contended that the payment of Rs.9,75,182 was made under protest and without prejudice to his rights. The Court examined the registrar’s reasoning and held that a payment made under protest does not amount to an admission of liability. Consequently, the Court set aside the registrar’s order, restored the revision application, and directed the registrar to adjudicate the matter on its merits. All parties’ rights and contentions were kept open, and the writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the dismissal of the revision application on the basis that full payment signifies acceptance of liability is legally correct.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • revision application
  • co-operative societies
  • acceptance of liability
  • payment under protest
  • remand
  • civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

Neeta Sawant                                                 32-WP-10615-2026.docx


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     WRIT PETITION NO. 10615 OF 2026


Laxmi J. Patel                                                …..Petitioner
        : Versus :
District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies (2) & Ors.                             ….Respondents


Mr. Prashant Kulkarni with Ms. Ritika Rajeev i.b. Ms. Rachna Mamnani,                for
the Petitioner.
Ms. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for State.
Mr. Sanjay A. Shah, Secretary of Respondent No.3-Society present in person.




                                        CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATED :          29 AUGUST 2026.
P.C :

1)             The Petition challenges order dated 26 June 2025 passed by the
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-II, Eastern Suburbs,
Mumbai dismissing Revision Application No. 299 of 2025.


2)             I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner.    Mr. Shah, Secretary of the Respondent-Society is personally
present before the Court and submits that the society does not want to engage
an advocate. He tenders Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the society.

___________________________________________________________________________________

                               PAGE NOS. 1 of 2
                              Saturday, 29 August 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                                 32-WP-10615-2026.docx


                      3)             Perusal of the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar would
                      indicate that he has refused to go into the merits of the Revision only on the
                      ground that 100% demanded amount is already paid by the Petitioner. The
                      District Deputy Registrar has recoded a finding that deposit of entire amount
                      signifies acceptance of liability by the Petitioner. However, in the memo of
                      Revision Application, the Petitioner had clearly stated that he had deposited
                      100% plus amount of Rs.9,75,182/- under protest and without prejudice to his
                      rights and contentions.      Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the District
                      Deputy Registrar that there is acceptance of liability on the part of the
                      Petitioner is incorrect.

                      4)             In my view therefore, the Revision Application preferred by the
                      Petitioner deserves to be adjudicated on merits. For that purpose, the order
                      dated 26 June 2025 deserves to be set aside and proceedings deserve to be
                      remanded for adjudication on merits before the District Deputy Registrar. I
                      accordingly proceed to pass the following order :

                              (i)Order dated 26 June 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar is
                              set aside.

                              (ii)Revision Application No.299/2025 is restored on the file of the
                              District Deputy Registrar who shall proceed to adjudicate the same on
                              merits.

                      5)     All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. With
                      the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.




         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
         2026.08.31
                                                                                [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
         14:52:31
         +0530



                      ___________________________________________________________________________________

                                                      PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
                                                     Saturday, 29 August 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.