Bombay High Court

THE GR. BOMBAY CO.OP. BANK LTD.versusMR. MAHESH NANAJI BHANUSHALI AND ORS

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Rule Made Absolute
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The attachment order cannot be sustained; the correct remedy is to raise objections under sub‑rule (19) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules.

Summary

The petitioner, The Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd., challenged an attachment order issued by a Special Recovery Officer under sub‑rule (19) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The respondents had earlier obtained a stay on the attachment order through a revision application, but the court held that the proper remedy was to raise objections under the same sub‑rule of Rule 107, not through a revision. Consequently, the court found the attachment order could not be sustained. The court directed that the matter be kept open for agitations under sub‑rule (19) of Rule 107. The petition was dismissed and the order made absolute as per prayer clause (c). No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the attachment order passed under sub‑rule (19) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules can be challenged by a revision application.
Whether the appropriate remedy for contesting the attachment order is an application under sub‑rule (19) of Rule 107.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 — s. Rule 107 (sub‑rule 19)

Subjects

attachment order
cooperative societies
revision application
writ petition
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules
Rule 107
sub‑rule 19
remedial jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                              5-wp-12152-2019.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.12152 OF 2019
SHABNOOR
AYUB                  The Greater Bombay Cooperative
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
                      Bank Ltd.                                     … Petitioner
PATHAN
Date: 2026.02.02
                                 V/s.
15:49:26 +0530
                      Mahesh Nanaji Bhanushali & Ors.               … Respondents

                      Mr. Harsih R. Pawar a/w Rudra Karekar, for the
                      Petitioner.
                      Ms. Jennifer Michael, i/b Ms. Alisha Pinto, for
                      Respondent No.1.



                                                   CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                   DATED      : FEBRUARY 2, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

                      2.      The challenge in the present petition arises out of an order of
                      attachment passed by the Special Recovery Officer under sub-rule
                      (19) of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules,
                      1961 (“the MCS Rules”). It is contended by the contesting
                      respondents that, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in
                      an earlier writ petition permitting them to institute appropriate
                      proceedings challenging the attachment order, the contesting
                      respondents filed Revision Application No.19 of 2018. In the said
                      revision application, the Revisional Authority granted a stay to the
                      order of attachment.




                                                         1
                                                         5-wp-12152-2019.doc


3.     In my opinion, the appropriate remedy available to the
contesting respondents is to raise objections under sub-rule (19) of
Rule 107 of the MCS Rules.

4.     Hence, keeping all the questions raised by the contesting
respondents open to be agitated in an application under sub-rule
(19) of Rule 107 of the MCS Rules, the impugned order cannot be
sustained.

5.     Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(c).

6.     The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.


                                              (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…