Bombay High Court
SACHIN HOUSRAO KARANDEversusDIVISIONAL DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOC. PUNE DIVSISION PUNE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the petitioner, having executed loan documents and being aware of the loan, cannot claim that the loan was never disbursed, and therefore the recovery certificate and the confirming order stand.
Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Housrao Karande, challenged a 2019 order confirming a recovery certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, alleging he never applied for or received a loan of Rs.7,45,000 from the respondent credit society and that he is not a member. The court noted that the petitioner, acting as Secretary of the society, had signed loan applications, promissory notes and related documents, indicating knowledge and acceptance of the loan. It further observed that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.15,00,000 with the society and had been offered a concession on interest if he repaid Rs.10,00,000 within a month. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the loan was never disbursed and held there was no ground to interfere with the earlier orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner may seek a fresh amnesty application from the society.
Issues considered
- What is the legal effect of a recovery certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on a non‑member who signed loan documents?
- Whether the petitioner can challenge the validity of the loan and the recovery order on the ground that the loan was never disbursed.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to interfere with the revision order confirming the recovery certificate.
Subjects
- co-operative society
- loan recovery
- recovery certificate
- revision application
- writ petition
- member status
- interest concession
- liability
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35158
Megha 31_WP_1686_2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1686 OF 2020
Sachin Housrao Karande ...Petitioner
V/s.
Divisional Deputy Registrar Co-
operative Societies, Pune Division,
Pune and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Rahul Kate i/b. Mr. Pankaj P. Deokar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ganesh Pawar i/b. Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde for Respondent Nos.3
and 4.
Ms. Savina R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 16 April 2019 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune,
(Divisional Joint Registrar) in Revision Application No.145 of 2017 and
confirming the Recovery Certificate dated 3 December 2015 issued by the
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indapur, Pune (Assistant
Registrar).
Page No.1 of 3
24 August 2026
Megha 31_WP_1686_2020
2) I have heard Mr. Kate, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 and Ms. Crasto, the learned AGP appearing for the
Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
3) Mr. Kate submits that the Petitioner is not even a member of the
Respondent-Credit Society. He submits that the business of the
Respondent-Credit Society is mainly to disburse loan facility to women.
He further submits that the Petitioner had never applied for any loan and
in respect of certain acts of the Petitioner in his capacity as a Secretary
of the Society, he is held responsible and his signatures are obtained on
documents to show that the loan is availed by him. That in fact, amount
of Rs.7,45,000/- was never disbursed to the Petitioner.
4) However, it is seen that the Petitioner has signed and executed
various documents such as loan application, demand promissory note,
application for guarantors, loan agreement, etc. Petitioner was
functioning as Secretary of the Credit Society and had full knowledge of
consequences of signing loan documents and he would not have signed
those documents if the loan amount was not to be disbursed to him.
Even if the case of the Petitioner is accepted, and if indeed he had
liability to pay an amount of Rs.7,45,000/- to the Credit Society it is
possible that because of his inability to pay the amount at one go, he
may have accepted the arrangement of securing loan from the Credit
Society. Merely because the Society accepted the arrangement for loan,
that does not mean that liability of the Petitioner to repay the loan
Page No.2 of 3
24 August 2026
Megha 31_WP_1686_2020
amount would get extinguished. The Petitioner was working as a
Secretary of the Credit Society and was fully aware of consequences of
signing various loan documents. In such circumstances, he cannot now
turn around and contend that loan itself was never applied for or
disbursed.
5) The Petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
with the Respondent -Society as recorded in the order dated 23 April
2025. It appears that the Petitioner was attempting to settle the disputes
with the Respondent -Credit Society and letter dated 9 August 2025 was
issued to the Petitioner granting him concession in respect of interest
amount of Rs. 4,46,888/- in the event of he repaying the outstanding
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- within a month. Mr. Kate submits that he is
unable to contact the Petitioner and does not know about the current
situation.
6) Considering the above position, I find it difficult to accept the
case of the Petitioner that he had never applied for or availed the loan.
There is no warrant for interference in the impugned orders.
7) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open
for the Petitioner to approach the Respondent-Credit Society and submit
a fresh application for granting amnesty as was earlier done on 9 August
2025. If such application is made by the Petitioner, it is for the
Respondent-Society to consider and decide the same.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 24 August 2026
Date: 27/08/2026 16:25:22
Checking your session…