Bombay High Court
TJSB SAHAKARI BANK LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
The maintainability of a revision under Section 154(2A) is a jurisdictional issue that does not curtail the petitioners' statutory right to contest objections under sub‑rule 19 of Rule 107.
Summary
The petitioners, cooperative banks under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, challenged a finding of the Revisional Authority that Section 154(2A) of the Act does not bar a revision against an attachment order issued under sub‑rule 11 of Rule 107. They argued that such a finding, if treated as precedent, would allow borrowers to contest attachment orders repeatedly, thereby delaying recovery. The Court held that the question of maintainability of a revision is a jurisdictional matter distinct from the statutory right to raise objections under sub‑rule 19 of Rule 107. The Court clarified that a revision, even if entertained, merely examines the legality of the attachment and does not affect the limited, summary enquiry under sub‑rule 19. Consequently, the petitioners’ rights to resist objections under sub‑rule 19 and to pursue recovery under Rule 107 remain unaffected, and the petitions were disposed with clarification.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act bars the filing of a revision against an order of attachment under Rule 107.
- Whether a finding on the maintainability of a revision can prejudice the petitioners' right to raise objections under sub‑rule 19 of Rule 107.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154(2A)
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 — s. Rule 107, sub‑rule 11, sub‑rule 19
Subjects
- revision jurisdiction
- attachment order
- cooperative bank
- Section 154(2A)
- Rule 107
- sub‑rule 19
- maintainability
- statutory bar
Judgment
12-18-wp-1283-2026 with connected.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1283 OF 2026
SHABNOOR
AYUB TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
PATHAN
Date: 2026.02.02
V/s.
15:49:26 +0530
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1284 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1286 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1286 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
1
12-18-wp-1283-2026 with connected.doc
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1287 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1289 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1290 OF 2026
TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd.
A Multistate Coope Bank & Anr. … petitionerss
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Aadesh M. Patil, for the petitionerss in all WPs.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, for the State – Respondents
in all the WPs.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2026
P.C.:
1. The petitioners, a co operative bank within the meaning of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, have invoked the writ
2
12-18-wp-1283-2026 with connected.doc
jurisdiction of this Court to question the findings recorded by the
Revisional Authority in revisions preferred by the borrowers. Those
revisions were directed against orders of attachment issued under
sub rule 11 of Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1961. The attachment orders were passed in the course of
recovery proceedings initiated by the bank. The borrowers sought
to assail the legality of such attachment by invoking revisional
powers. While dealing with those revisions, the Revisional
Authority dismissed the same on merits. However, it recorded
certain observations on the question of maintainability which have
given rise to the present challenge.
2. The limited grievance of the petitioners is not directed
against the dismissal of the revisions as such. The challenge is
confined to the finding recorded by the Revisional Authority that
the statutory bar contained in Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 would not preclude the
entertainment of a revision application against an order of
attachment. According to the petitioners, once the legislature has
imposed a restriction on the revisional jurisdiction in respect of
specified orders, the authority could not have diluted that
restriction by observing that a revision against an attachment order
would nonetheless be maintainable. The petitioners submit that
such a declaration, even if not operative in the present case, may
be relied upon in future proceedings to defeat their objection to
the maintainability of similar revisions.
3. It is urged that the petitioners have substantive remedies
available for recovery of their dues and that the statutory
3
12-18-wp-1283-2026 with connected.doc
framework under Rule 107 provides a complete code for
attachment and sale. The apprehension expressed is that if the
view taken by the Revisional Authority is treated as a binding
precedent, it may open the floodgates for borrowers to challenge
attachment orders by way of revision, thereby delaying recovery. It
is further contended that objections which may be raised under
sub rule 19 of Rule 107, particularly by third parties claiming
interest in the attached property, could also be prejudicially
affected if the maintainability of revision applications is treated in
a liberal manner.
4. Upon a careful consideration of the rival submissions, I find
that the apprehension of the petitioners is misconceived. The
question whether a revision application is maintainable under
Section 154(2A) is a jurisdictional issue between the revisional
forum and the applicant invoking such jurisdiction. That question
does not and cannot curtail the statutory rights of the petitioners
to contest any objection raised under sub rule 19 of Rule 107.
Proceedings under sub rule 19 are of a distinct and limited
character. The authority conducting such enquiry is required to
determine whether the objector establishes an independent right,
title or interest in the attached property. The enquiry is summary
in nature and is confined to the claim of the objector. It does not
reopen the validity of the attachment order on grounds which fall
outside the scope of that sub rule.
5. The maintainability of a revision against an attachment order
under Section 154(2A) operates in a different field. Even assuming
that a revision is entertained, the revisional authority would
4
12-18-wp-1283-2026 with connected.doc
examine the legality or propriety of the attachment in accordance
with law. Such examination does not enlarge or restrict the enquiry
contemplated under sub rule 19. The two remedies function in
separate spheres. A finding on maintainability in one proceeding
cannot govern the adjudication in another, particularly when the
statutory scheme clearly delineates their scope.
6. In that view of the matter, no prejudice in law is shown to
have been caused to the petitioners by the observations of the
Revisional Authority. The rights of the petitioners to resist any
objection under sub rule 19, and to pursue recovery in accordance
with Rule 107, remain intact and unaffected.
7. The petitions are accordingly disposed of with the above
clarification.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
5
Checking your session…