NIRMAL PURSHOTTAM BHATIAversusTHE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS

                                                                             WP-1421-20+.doc


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

                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 1421 OF 2020

                               Nirmal Purshottam Bhatia
                               Aged 50 years, Resident at
                               Flat No.201, 202, Devi Ma Apartment,
                               Prem Nagar Tekdi, Gandhi Road,
                               Ulhasnagar -421005                      … Petitioner
                                             V/s.

SAYALI                  1. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative
DEEPAK                     Societies, Ulhasnagar Taluka,
UPASANI
                           Having office at 2nd Floor,
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI
                           Sai Vihar Building, Above Gurudev
Date: 2026.04.28
15:25:17 +0530             Hotel, Shivaji Path, Kalyan, Dist. Thane.
                        2. The Konark Urban Cooperative Bank
                           Ltd., Konark Plaza, Ground Floor,
                           Near Sapna Theatre,
                           Ulhasnagar - 421 003
                        3. The Recovery Officer
                           (Shri Bharat Gerela) The Konark Urban
                           Cooperative Bank Ltd., Konark Plaza,
                           Ground Floor, Near Sapna Theatre,
                           Ulhasnagar - 421 003
                        4. M/s. Sunny Textiles through by
                           Proprietor Shri. Sunny Bhagwandas
                           Malkani (As Borrower)
                           Having address as Barrack No.723/6,
                           Hospital Area, Near Pappu Society,
                           Ulhasnagar – 421003 District: Thane
                        5. Satish Gopichand Harchwani
                           R/at Devi Villa, Block No.794/1587,



                                                        1
                                                     WP-1421-20+.doc


     Near Netaji High School, Ulhasnagar -5,
     District: Thane
 6. Mahesh Gopichand Harchwani
    R/at Devi Villa, Block No.794/1587,
    Near Netaji High School,
    Ulhasnagar -5, District: Thane
 7. The State of Maharashtra                   ... Respondents

                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.14072 OF 2022
                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.4680 OF 2023
                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.4574 OF 2023
                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.14028 OF 2022
                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.14030 OF 2022
                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.13005 OF 2022
                          WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO.15331 OF 2022

Nirmal Purshottam Bhatia                       … Petitioner
            V/s.
The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Ulhasnagar Taluka & Others          … Respondents

                          WITH
             WRIT PETITION ST NO.2736 OF 2020

Sunny Bhagwandas Malkani                       … Petitioner
            V/s.
The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Ulhasnagar Taluka & Others          … Respondents




                                2
                                                          WP-1421-20+.doc


Mr. Surel Shah with Mr. Prajit Sahane, Mr. Swapnil Sangle,
& Mr. Tanmay More i/b Mr. Chaitanya Nikte, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Neha Bhide, GP with Y. D. Patil, AGP for State-
Respondent.
Mr. Dhrupad Patil with Mr. Mustafa Shabbir Shamin, Mr.
Shivraj Patne, Mr. Aditya Joshi, Ms. Nafisa Shamin, & Mr.
Prasanna Pawar i/b Shamim and Co., for Respondent no. 2
in Writ Petition Nos.1421/2020, 4574/2023, 15331/2022,
14030/2022, 13005/2022, 14028/2022 & 14072/2022.
Ms. Minal Chandnani with Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, for
Petitioner in WP (st) No.2736 of 2020, and for Respondent
No. 4 in WP/1421/2020.
Mr. Rajendra Pai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Pai, &
Mr. Monish Bhatia, for Respondent nos. 5 and 6.


                 CORAM                 : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                 RESERVED ON           : APRIL 18, 2026

                 PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 28, 2026

JUDGMENT:

1.    Since an identical question of law arises for determination in
all these writ petitions, and the factual background in the matters
is substantially common, all the petitions are being decided by this
common judgment and order, so as to avoid repetition of facts,
duplication of discussion, and possibility of conflicting conclusions.

2.    By the present petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the
legality, validity, and correctness of the judgment and order dated
18th November 2019 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, whereby recovery proceedings came to be



                                  3
                                                           WP-1421-20+.doc


allowed, and consequential recovery certificate was issued.

3.    The facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are that
the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing and
setting aside of the impugned order dated 18 November 2019
passed by respondent No. 1, namely the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, together with the recovery certificate of even
date issued for recovery of an alleged amount of Rs.1,70,53,041.38
from M/s Sunny Textiles. According to the petitioners, one of them
has been wrongly and falsely shown as guarantor in the said
proceedings, though no lawful basis existed for fastening such
liability. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned action is ex
facie illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and wholly misconceived. The
petitioners state that in the month of March 2017, Mr. Satish
Harchwani approached one of the petitioners and handed over a
communication dated 9 March 2017 issued by respondent No. 2
Bank, whereby the petitioner was called upon to create an
equitable mortgage over certain properties, the title deeds whereof
were stated to have been deposited under a memorandum dated 5
March 2015 with the Bank. In the said communication, respondent
No. 2 Bank referred to a document described as an “Undertaking
to Extend Equitable Mortgage on Properties for Additional Limits”
allegedly executed on 23 March 2015 by the petitioner. The
petitioner asserts that no such undertaking was ever executed and,
therefore, the contents thereof came as a complete surprise. Upon
perusal of the said document, the petitioner found that charge over
his property alone was allegedly extended to as many as sixteen
accounts, without consent, authority, or knowledge of the



                                   4
                                                         WP-1421-20+.doc


petitioner. It is further alleged that even in respect of accounts for
which limited consent was stated to have been given, the figures
mentioned were inconsistent with the actual amounts. The
petitioner claims that he was only an additional guarantor in
limited matters, whereas Mr. Mahesh Harchwani and Mr. Satish
Harchwani were the principal guarantors who had mortgaged their
own properties with respondent No. 2 Bank. However, the letter
dated 9 March 2017 made no reference whatsoever to the
properties of the said principal guarantors. On enquiry, no
satisfactory explanation was furnished by the Bank.

4.    Thereafter, respondent No.2 Bank instituted proceedings
under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960, being Application No.60 of 2017, in relation to Sunny
Textiles. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was impleaded as
respondent No. 4 along with three others, namely Sunny Textiles
as respondent No. 1, Satish Harchwani as respondent No. 2, and
Mahesh Harchwani as respondent No. 3, for recovery of an alleged
sum of Rs.1,70,27,441.38 before the Assistant Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Ulhasnagar at Kalyan. According to the
petitioners, several documents were annexed by the Bank with the
said application, which on the face of record appeared to be
forged, fabricated, and manipulated. The petitioner, along with
Satish Harchwani and Mahesh Harchwani, filed replies denying
the allegations and disputing liability. The alleged borrower,
namely Mr. Sunny Malkani, proprietor of Sunny Textiles, did not
appear in the said proceedings. It is further brought on record that
apart from Application No. 60 of 2017 concerning Sunny Textiles,



                                  5
                                                        WP-1421-20+.doc


respondent No. 2 Bank had also filed seven other applications
under Section 101 against seven separate entities. Out of those
entities, six were completely unknown to the petitioner, yet the
petitioner was also joined as respondent in those proceedings
alleging liability. According to the petitioner, a common pattern
was thus adopted whereby liability was sought to be imposed in
multiple matters without any lawful connection. Upon hearing the
parties, the Assistant Registrar, by a detailed order dated 2 January
2018, dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 2 Bank.

5.    Respondent No. 1, namely the Assistant Registrar, by the said
detailed order, also dismissed seven other connected matters filed
by respondent No. 2 Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that
during the course of those proceedings they realised that the Bank
was attempting to unlawfully deprive them of their property by
creating false and fabricated documents. Consequently, the
petitioner lodged a First Information Report dated 09th February
2018 against Mr. Ramesh Makhija, Chief Executive Officer of
respondent No. 2 Bank, and others at Madhyavarti Police Station,
which came to be registered as FIR No. I-35 of 2018 for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the investigation in the said
crime has thereafter been transferred to the Economic Offences
Wing, Thane.

6.    Being aggrieved by the order dated 2 January 2018,
respondent No. 2 Bank preferred Revision Application No. 34 of
2018 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, on 23 February 2018. The



                                  6
                                                         WP-1421-20+.doc


petitioner filed reply and opposed the revision application.
However, by order dated 16 January 2019, the revisional authority
allowed the revision application and remanded the matter to the
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ulhasnagar, for fresh
consideration. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 proceeded to allow the
application of respondent No. 2 Bank under Section 101 of the
said Act by the impugned order dated 18 November 2019 and
issued recovery certificate of the same date for recovery of
Rs.1,70,53,041.38. The petitioners contend that thereafter it
became clear that respondent No. 2 Bank had created fictitious
entities, falsely shown borrowers as proprietors of such entities on
the basis of fabricated documents, and had also forged the alleged
undertaking dated 23 March 2015 attributed to the petitioner,
solely with a view to proceed against the petitioner’s properties of
which title documents were in possession of the Bank. It is further
contended that no actual loan amount was ever disbursed to any
genuine entity, and the bank statements annexed by the Bank itself
indicate that amounts were merely transferred from one internal
account to another. On that basis, it is alleged that the transactions
were internal paper entries, and outsiders were sought to be made
scapegoats to conceal internal irregularities and to seize the
petitioner’s properties.

7.    Being aggrieved by the aforesaid developments and the
recovery action taken pursuant thereto, the petitioner and other
borrowers instituted Co-operative Dispute No. 55 of 2020 under
Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before
the learned Co-operative Court at Thane, seeking diverse



                                  7
                                                        WP-1421-20+.doc


declaratory and consequential reliefs. It is on these grounds that
the petitioners contend that the impugned order and recovery
certificate are unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and
set aside. Hence, the present writ petitions.

8.    Mr. Surel Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioners in the connected writ petitions, submitted that all the
petitioners stand arrayed only as alleged guarantors in respect of
eight purported Working Capital Overdraft Facilities sanctioned by
the respondent Bank. According to him, the very foundation of the
Bank’s claim is vitiated, inasmuch as the signatures appearing on
the loan application forms as well as on the alleged undertaking
dated 23 March 2015 are forged and fabricated. It was urged that
the petitioners had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the said
eight facilities and came to know of the same only when, by
communication dated 9 March 2017, the Bank called upon them to
complete mortgage formalities. Immediately thereafter, complaints
were lodged before the Reserve Bank of India, with copies
forwarded to the respondent Bank.

9.    Learned Senior counsel further submitted that in reply to the
said complaint, the Bank itself stated that there existed sixteen
WCOD accounts, out of which eight had allegedly been closed
after sale of guarantors’ properties, while eight remained
operative. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 101 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act were initiated by the Bank.
The same were strongly contested by both the borrowers and the
present petitioners. The principal defence raised was that all eight
accounts were fictitious, unsupported by genuine transactions, and



                                  8
                                                       WP-1421-20+.doc


based on forged signatures. It was pointed out that the Deputy
Registrar, who initially considered the application under Section
101, dismissed the Bank’s claim on the ground that there were
discrepancies in signatures and that complete and proper
documentation had not been produced.

10.   It was then submitted that the matter came to be remanded
in revision at the instance of the Bank on the ground of alleged
denial of opportunity and breach of procedural requirements.
Upon remand, detailed replies were again filed by the petitioners
and borrowers raising specific objections regarding discrepancies
in accounts, dates, signatures, and supporting records. However,
according to learned counsel, the Deputy Registrar thereafter
issued the impugned recovery certificate in a wholly mechanical
manner, without adhering to the scope of remand and without
examining the substantial defences raised. A revision under
Section 154 was thereafter preferred, but the same was dismissed
on the ground of non-compliance with sub-section (2A) thereof.

11.   Learned Senior counsel submitted that parallel criminal
proceedings also came to be initiated, wherein an FIR was
registered in relation to forged accounts and fabricated documents,
and charge-sheet has now been filed. Reliance was placed upon
the statement of one Mr. Madhukar Awad, Deputy General
Manager of the respondent Bank, who is stated to have
categorically admitted that none of the borrowers had come before
him for execution of documents. It was further submitted that the
petitioners and borrowers also instituted a dispute under Section
91 before the Co-operative Court challenging the very transaction



                                 9
                                                           WP-1421-20+.doc


of grant of overdraft facilities. In the said proceedings, the Bank
filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which resulted in rejection of the plaint, against which
an appeal has been preferred.

12.   It was next contended that when the petitioners approached
this Court challenging the recovery certificate, interim protection
against recovery was granted in one of the petitions. During the
course of hearing, it was pointed out that the bank account
statements produced by the respondent Bank did not correspond
with the accounts in which amounts were allegedly transferred. It
was urged that only thereafter, by way of reply and additional
affidavit, the Bank sought to introduce fresh statements and
explanatory charts in an attempt to correlate the transactions.
Learned counsel submitted that the Bank has consistently changed
its stand. Before the Reserve Bank of India, it was stated that eight
accounts were closed by sale of properties belonging to Satish and
Mahesh Harchwani to the extent of Rs.12.80 crores. However,
before this Court, the Bank remained silent on that explanation
and later adopted an altogether different case that eight accounts
were adjusted through inter-group transfers from accounts of
Satish Harchwani, Nirmal Bhatia and Dhiraj Bhatia.

13.   Learned   Senior   counsel      further   relied   upon   judicial
precedents to contend that the scope of proceedings under Section
101 is limited and summary in nature. Reliance was placed on the
decisions of this Court in Top Ten and Pimpri Chinchwad Sahakari
Bank, wherein it has been held that if a bona fide and substantial
dispute regarding arrears is raised, the Registrar must relegate the



                                 10
                                                            WP-1421-20+.doc


parties to adjudication under Section 91. It was submitted that the
authority under Section 101 is required to act strictly on clear,
complete, and unimpeachable account statements, supported by
proper records, and must render a reasoned order demonstrating
application of mind. According to learned counsel, in the present
case no clear finding has been recorded regarding correctness of
accounts, no comparative scrutiny of entries has been undertaken,
original documents were not available, and serious disputes
involving     fraud,   forgery,   fabricated    records,   mismatch     of
signatures, and contradictory dates have been ignored. It was also
urged that even a surety is entitled to challenge the recovery
action on merits.

14.   Lastly, learned senior counsel submitted that the surrounding
circumstances     themselves      demonstrate     fraud.   The   alleged
application for overdraft preceded opening of the account.
Membership forms were subsequent to sanction. Signatures on
guarantee and loan documents do not tally. The sanction letter
dated 20 March 2015 refers to petitioner’s mortgaged properties
even though the alleged extension of equitable mortgage is dated
23    March    2015,    thereby    showing     prior   manipulation     of
documents. No instruments such as cheques or payment orders
supporting the transactions were produced. In the additional
affidavit, for the first time, the Bank introduced a case of cheque
discounting and dishonoured cheques, which never formed part of
the original Section 101 proceedings. It was further urged that the
affairs of the Bank were already under scrutiny and an
Administrator had been appointed. In these circumstances, learned



                                    11
                                                       WP-1421-20+.doc


counsel submitted that the entire transaction is tainted by fraud
and accounting irregularities, matters wholly unsuited for
summary proceedings under Section 101. He therefore prayed that
the impugned judgment, order, and consequential recovery
certificate be quashed and set aside.

15.   Per contra, Mr. Dhrupad Patil, learned Advocate appearing
for respondent No. 2 Bank, opposed the petitions and submitted
that the petitioners have instituted eight separate writ petitions
challenging the orders dated 18th November 2019 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ulhasnagar under
Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
He submitted that a separate chart has been placed on record
setting out particulars of the respective writ petitions, the
concerned borrowers, guarantors, and the proceedings under
Section 101. It was further contended that the petitioners have an
alternate and efficacious statutory remedy by way of revision
under Section 154 of the said Act. According to learned counsel,
though such remedy was invoked, the petitioners failed to comply
with the mandatory requirement of deposit of fifty percent of the
recoverable amount as contemplated under Section 154(2). He
also submitted that the petitioners cannot dispute their connection
with the transactions merely on the ground that they had not
signed certain individual loan applications, when their liability
arises as guarantors in the relevant accounts forming subject-
matter of the seven writ petitions.

16.   Learned counsel further submitted that in all the seven
accounts referred to by the Bank, Shri Satish Harchwani, Shri



                                 12
                                                        WP-1421-20+.doc


Mahesh Harchwani, and the present petitioner, namely Shri Nirmal
Bhatia, stood as guarantors in respect of the overdraft facilities or
loan transactions sanctioned by respondent No. 2 Bank. Insofar as
WCOD Account No. 7 relating to M/s Swami Narayan Trader is
concerned, which forms subject-matter of one of the petitions, the
petitioner himself is stated to be the proprietor. It was further
submitted that the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, along with
Shri Dhiraj Bhatia, Shri Sunny Malkani, Shri Jeetu Mohandas
Bajaj, Shri Vishal Kolge, and Shri Tanaji Yadav, have jointly
instituted a dispute under Section 91 of the Act before the Co-
operative Court at Thane. According to respondent No. 2, in all
there were sixteen overdraft facilities sanctioned by the Bank in
which the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 stood as
guarantors, all of which were sanctioned on 20 March 2015.

17.   It was then urged that out of the aforesaid sixteen facilities,
eight accounts already stand closed upon repayment, and such
closure has never been disputed by the petitioners. Learned
counsel submitted that in the closed accounts, amounts were
transferred from the accounts which are the subject-matter of the
present eight writ petitions, thereby clearly demonstrating
interlinking of the transactions and acknowledgement of liability
through actual repayments. According to him, once the petitioners
do not dispute closure of eight accounts through such adjustments,
they cannot selectively challenge only the remaining accounts
while denying the overall transaction structure.

18.   Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Bank
had referred the disputed signatures of the petitioner to a forensic



                                 13
                                                            WP-1421-20+.doc


expert for examination. The expert is stated to have opined that
the signatures appearing on the letter dated 23 March 2015, on
the joint and several guarantees dated 28 March 2013, and on the
Permanent Account Number records matched and were of the
same person. On the strength of such material, it was contended
that the allegation of forgery is devoid of merit. It was further
submitted that by way of additional affidavit and convenience
compilation tendered before this Court, respondent No. 2 has
sufficiently   demonstrated      that   every   credit   entry   had     a
corresponding debit entry, thereby establishing genuineness of the
banking transactions.

19.   Learned counsel also submitted that in all the accounts
forming subject-matter of the present writ petitions, funds were
received from Current Account No. CD 2367 standing in the name
of Shri Satish Harchwani. The factum of such payments, according
to him, has not been disputed by any of the parties. It was urged
that if the accounts were fictitious or forged, as alleged by the
petitioners, there was no reason for genuine repayments or
transfers to be effected from the said current account. Such
conduct, according to the respondent Bank, clearly negatives the
theory of fabricated accounts.

20.   It was further submitted that in the accounts involved in Writ
Petition Nos. 15331 of 2022, 13005 of 2022, and 14028 of 2022,
there are also transactions from Current Account No.2537 standing
in the name of Shri Dhiraj Bhatia, who is the son of the petitioner.
Learned counsel pointed out that Shri Dhiraj Bhatia and Shri
Satish Harchwani are admitted business associates. On that basis,



                                   14
                                                           WP-1421-20+.doc


it was argued that the monetary dealings were part of known
business arrangements and cannot now be disowned by the
petitioners. It was further submitted that the petitioners have
selectively relied upon certain entries in the account statements to
contend that corresponding entries are absent in receiving
accounts, while ignoring the complete set of records produced by
the Bank.

21.   Lastly, learned counsel submitted that except WCOD Account
No. 277, all the other receiving overdraft accounts already stand
closed, and such closure remains undisputed till date. According to
him, the material placed on record clearly establishes sanction of
facilities, operation of accounts, movement of funds, partial
repayments, and subsisting liability. It was therefore contended
that no case for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India is made out. On these grounds, learned
counsel prayed that all the writ petitions be dismissed.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

22.   Having heard the learned advocates for the parties at some
length and having gone through the material placed on record, this
Court is of the view that the present group of petitions cannot be
entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The controversy is in
substance founded upon disputed questions of fact, and the same
cannot be finally adjudicated without examining the original
transactions in their proper setting. The petitions, therefore, do not
warrant interference at this stage.




                                 15
                                                          WP-1421-20+.doc


23.   The foundation of the petitioners’ case is that they were
shown as guarantors in respect of several Working Capital
Overdraft facilities, though according to them the signatures on
the loan papers and the alleged undertaking dated 23 March 2015
are forged, fabricated and not executed by them. It is also their
case that they came to know of the matter only upon receipt of the
communication dated 9 March 2017, and thereafter they made
complaints before the Reserve Bank of India and also questioned
the action of the Bank before the co-operative forums. The
petitioners have further submitted that the original documents
were not before the authority, that account statements are
inconsistent, that entries do not tally, and that the Bank has
adopted shifting stands from time to time. These are serious
allegations. Yet, they are allegations which cannot be decided
merely on affidavits in writ proceedings.

24.   On the other hand, the respondent Bank has placed reliance
on the fact that there were in all sixteen overdraft facilities, out of
which eight accounts were already closed, and the remaining eight
continue to be treated as operative. It is the positive case of the
Bank that the petitioners, along with Satish Harchwani and
Mahesh Harchwani, stood as guarantors in respect of the relevant
facilities, that the transactions were supported by documentation,
that repayments were received through connected accounts, and
that the signatures of the petitioner were sent for forensic
examination, wherein it was opined that the signatures on the
relevant documents matched. The Bank further says that the
account statements were later placed before this Court to show



                                  16
                                                        WP-1421-20+.doc


corresponding debit and credit entries, and that the transactions
are part of one integrated business arrangement. This again is not
a matter which can be decided by summary examination in writ
jurisdiction.

25.   The Court has carefully considered the nature of the dispute.
The petitioners seek to demonstrate fraud, forgery, manipulation of
bank records, and absence of lawful execution of mortgage and
guarantee documents. The Bank disputes these claims and relies
upon the sanction letters, guarantees, account statements,
repayments, closure of some accounts, and the opinion of the
forensic expert. There is thus a direct conflict on facts. Questions
arise as to who executed which document, whether the signatures
are genuine, whether the accounts were actually opened in the
manner claimed by the Bank, whether the overdraft facilities were
in fact sanctioned and operated, whether the entries are supported
by underlying instruments, and whether the transactions were
inter-account transfers or genuine disbursement and repayment.
These issues cannot be resolved merely by perusal of the papers
placed in a writ petition.

26.   It is also relevant that the petitioners themselves have
already taken recourse to a remedy under Section 91 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the Co-operative
Court. That proceeding is the forum where the parties may
establish their respective versions on a fuller examination of facts.
Likewise, where the petitioners challenge the impugned recovery
action on grounds of disputed execution, forged signatures, false
account entries, and alleged fabrication of documents, the proper



                                 17
                                                        WP-1421-20+.doc


course is to invoke the revisional remedy under Section 154 of the
Act, subject to compliance with the statutory requirements therein.
The existence of such remedy is better suited for examination of
disputed materials and for correction of errors arising from the
impugned order, if any.

27.   The petitioners have argued that the order under Section
101 is vitiated because the authority did not have original
documents, did not deal with the alleged discrepancies, and did
not record a proper finding on the correctness of the account
statements. They have also relied upon the alleged shifting stands
of the Bank before different authorities and before this Court. At
the same time, they equally demonstrate that the controversy is
not confined to a pure question of law. It turns on whether the
documents are genuine, whether the accounts are correctly
prepared, whether the repayments were made, and whether the
petitioner had in fact consented to the transactions. The issue is
therefore one of fact and mixed fact and law, and not fit for
immediate writ determination.

28.   The allegations of fraud may in some cases justify
interference even in writ jurisdiction. But here, the Court does not
find a situation where the materials are so one-sided that a final
conclusion can be recorded. The Bank has produced material to
show that the facilities were sanctioned, that the guarantees were
acted upon, that some accounts were closed, and that transfers
were made from connected accounts. The petitioners have
produced contrary material to show absence of genuine consent,
mismatch in signatures, absence of proper instruments, and



                                18
                                                           WP-1421-20+.doc


inconsistency in dates. When both sides produce material of this
nature, the Court is not to enter upon a mini trial under Article
226. The proper course is to leave the parties to the statutory
remedy where the evidence may be examined in a lawful manner.

29.   The submission based on the forensic opinion also does not
conclude the issue at this stage. A forensic report may be a
relevant piece of material, but it does not by itself finally settle all
surrounding disputes. The petitioners are entitled to question the
circumstances in which the documents were prepared, the
sequence of sanction and mortgage, the authenticity of the
supporting papers, and the internal consistency of the accounts.
Likewise, the Bank is entitled to rely upon its records and the
alleged repayments. Such competing contentions are better left to
the revisional authority or the co-operative forum empowered to
examine them. The writ Court should not convert itself into an
original fact finding authority.

30.   The Court is also conscious of the argument of alternative
remedy. Though availability of alternative remedy is not an
absolute bar in every case, the rule of self-restraint assumes
importance where the petition essentially requires scrutiny of
disputed facts and where a statutory revisional mechanism is
available. In the present matter, the challenge is directed not
merely against jurisdiction, but substantially against the factual
basis of the recovery certificate itself. The petitioners seek a
declaration that the documents are forged, the accounts are false,
and the transactions are not genuine. Such questions are not
properly answerable in a summary writ proceeding. They can be



                                   19
                                                         WP-1421-20+.doc


better addressed in revision under Section 154, where the
statutory forum may examine whether the impugned order
deserves to be sustained or interfered with.

31.   Therefore, while this Court has not accepted the petitioners’
request for writ interference, it is made clear that the petitioners
shall be at liberty to avail the remedy of revision under Section
154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in
accordance with law, subject to limitation and all statutory
conditions, if they are otherwise available and permissible. If such
revision is filed, the revisional authority shall consider the same on
its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made in this judgment on the factual controversies.

32.   For the reasons aforesaid, the petitions are dismissed. Rule
stands discharged. No order as to costs.

33.   Liberty as above is reserved to the petitioners to pursue the
remedy of revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960.

34.   At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner requests for
continuation of the interim relief. However, for the reasons stated
in the judgment, the request for continuation of interim relief
stands rejected.


                                               (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                 20