Bombay High Court
VINOD GAUTAM PARDESHI AND ORSversusDIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The High Court held that the borrowers' objections do not meet the standard of a genuine dispute under Section 91, so the recovery certificates issued under Section 101 are valid and the writ petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners obtained loans of Rs.20,00,000 each from a cooperative credit society, totalling Rs.1,20,00,000, by involving five relatives as borrowers. After default, the society sought recovery under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the Deputy Registrar issued recovery certificates. The petitioners challenged the certificates, arguing that factual disputes required referral to Section 91, and the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed their revision applications, holding that disputed questions of fact existed. The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Pimpri Chinchwad Sahakari Bank Maryadit v. Arun Namdeo Pote, held that the objections raised were routine and did not constitute a genuine dispute warranting Section 91, thus confirming the validity of the recovery certificates. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the objections raised by the borrowers constitute a genuine dispute that necessitates referral to Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar was justified in proceeding under Section 101 for summary recovery of the loan amounts.
- Whether the recovery certificates issued by the Deputy Registrar can be confirmed.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 101, 91
Subjects
- loan recovery
- cooperative societies
- Section 101
- Section 91
- summary proceedings
- disputed facts
- writ petition
- recovery certificate
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:24524
Megha 905 to 910_wp_4531_2026 to 4542_26_fc.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4531 OF 2026
Vinod Gautam Pardeshi and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-
Operative Societies and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4532 OF 2026
Vinod Dhaya Bhagat and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-
Operative Societies and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4535 OF 2026
Vatsala Dhaya Bhagat and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-
Operative Societies and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4540 OF 2026
Harishchandra Gautam Pardeshi and
Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-
Operative Societies and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4541 OF 2026
Tejas Anant Patil and Ors. ...Petitioners
Page No.1 of 6
17 June 2026
Megha 905 to 910_wp_4531_2026 to 4542_26_fc.odt
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-
Operative Societies and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4542 OF 2026
Sharda Vinod Bhagat and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-
Operative Societies and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Vijay B. Dighe for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Parab for Respondent No.3.
Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/4531/2026.
Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/4532/2026.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/4535/2026.
Mr. Bapusaheb Dahiphale, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/4540/2026.
Ms. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/4541/2026.
Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP for Respondent- State in WP/4542/2026.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 17 JUNE 2026.
P.C.:
1) These six Petitions are >led challenging common order dated 5
March 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai (Divisional Joint Registrar),
dismissing Revision Application Nos. 81/23, 82/23, 83/23, 84/23, 85/23
Page No.2 of 6
17 June 2026
Megha 905 to 910_wp_4531_2026 to 4542_26_fc.odt
and 88/23. The effect of dismissal of the Revisions preferred by the
Petitioners is that the Recovery Certi>cates issued by the Deputy
Registrar, Co-operative Society, Thane (Deputy Registrar), on 6
November 2023 have been con>rmed.
2) I have heard Mr. Dighe, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Parab, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3 and the learned AGPs in the respective Petitions for the
Respondent -State.
3) This is a second round of litigation before this Court. It appears
that Mr. Vinod Dhaya Bhagat (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4532 of
2026) was desirous of seeking loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/- for his business
purposes. Since the policy of the Credit Society did not permit loans in
excess of Rs.20,00,000/-, it appears that Mr. Vinod Bhagat put forth his
>ve relatives as borrowers and accordingly loans of Rs.20,00,000/- each
were sanctioned and disbursed to Mr. Vinod Bhagat and his >ve relatives.
Since there was default in repayment of loan, the Respondent-Credit
Society >led Applications under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS Act) for recovery of loan amount
alongwith interest. The Applications were however, rejected by order
dated 19 July 2021 by citing vague reason by the Deputy Registrar that
there was difference in the amounts of loan in different documents. The
Revisions preferred by the Credit Society before the Divisional Joint
Registrar were partly allowed by order dated 16 January 2023 and the
recovery applications were remanded for fresh adjudication by the
Deputy Registrar. In the remanded proceedings, the Deputy Registrar has
issued recovery certi>cates against the Petitioners on 6 November 2023.
Page No.3 of 6
17 June 2026
Megha 905 to 910_wp_4531_2026 to 4542_26_fc.odt
4) The Petitioners >led Revision Application Nos. 81/23, 82/23, 83/23,
84/23, 85/23 and 88/23 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who set
aside the recovery certi>cates holding inter alia that disputed questions
of fact were involved, which could not be adjudicated in summary
proceedings under Section 101 of the MCS Act. The Divisional Joint
Registrar granted liberty to the Respondent-Credit Society to >le
disputes under Section 91 of the MCS Act.
5) In Writ Petitions >led by the Respondent-Credit Society before this
Court, an order was passed on 3 December 2025 setting aside the order of
the Divisional Joint Registrar and remanding the proceedings for fresh
adjudication. The >ndings recorded by this Court in order dated 3
December 2025 are as under:
8. The legal position on when the Deputy Registrar may decline to act
under Section 101 and direct the parties to a dispute under Section 91
now stands clari>ed. This Court in Pimpri Chinchwad Sahakari Bank
Maryadit versus Arun Namdeo Pote decided on 21 November 2025 has
examined this issue in detail. In paragraph numbers 36 to 48 of that
judgment, the Court explained the scope of the Deputy Registrar’s
powers. It held that relegation to Section 91 is an exception. It is
permitted only when the defence raised by the borrower goes to the
root of the transaction and shows a genuine dispute requiring a full
adjudication. The Court cautioned that Section 101 is a summary
remedy intended to aid recovery of dues that stand admitted or are
capable of ready veri>cation from the records of the society. The
authority must therefore examine whether the objections raised are
substantial or raised only to delay repayment.
9. Applying these principles, I >nd that the defence of the borrowers
and guarantors does not meet the standard laid down by this Court.
The objections raised by them relate to routine issues of account
maintenance or to entries described as suspicious without any
supporting material. Such objections do not convert a straightforward
loan recovery into a disputed matter within the meaning of Section 91.
The Deputy Registrar had already veri>ed the documents. He had
recorded a clear >nding that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed
Page No.4 of 6
17 June 2026
Megha 905 to 910_wp_4531_2026 to 4542_26_fc.odt
and that the dues could be ascertained from the material on record. In
these circumstances the Revisional Authority ought to have decided
the revision on merits. It was not justi>ed in bypassing its duty by
invoking Section 91.
6) Thus, this Court did not agree with the >ndings of the Divisional
Joint Registrar that the case involved disputed questions of fact and held
that >ling of dispute for recovery of loan amount is an exception. This
Court further observed that the defence sought to be raised by the
borrowers and guarantors did not meet the standards laid down by this
Court in Pimpri Chinchwad Sahakari Bank Maryadit and Anr. Vs. Arun
Namdeo Pote and Ors.1. In the remanded proceedings the Divisional
Joint Registrar has dismissed the revisions preferred by the Petitioners.
7) I have gone through the >ndings recorded by the Divisional Joint
Registrar. After perusal of various documents relied upon by the
Respondent-Credit Society, the Divisional Joint Registrar has recorded a
>nding of fact that sanction and disbursal of loan amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- each to Vinod Bhagat and his >ve relatives has been
proved. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is unable to
demonstrate an element of perversity in the said >ndings. He in fact,
admits that loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was indeed disbursed in the
accounts of each of the six borrowers. It appears that after the loan
amounts of Rs.20,00,000/- were disbursed, the >ve relatives of Mr. Vinod
Bhagat withdrew the disbursed amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash and the
said amounts deposited in the account of Mr. Vinod Bhagat. It is the
contention of Mr. Vinod Bhagat that Credit Society unauthorisedly
sought to transfer the credited amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from Khanda
Colony Branch to Vashi Branch without any valid authorisation of Mr.
1 Writ Petition No.8728 of 2022, decided on 21 November 2025.
Page No.5 of 6
17 June 2026
Megha 905 to 910_wp_4531_2026 to 4542_26_fc.odt
Vinod Bhagat. It is Mr. Vinod’s case that during the process of such
transfer, de>cit amount got credited in Vashi Branch of his Bank and he
received only an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. In my view, this defence
sought to be raised by Mr. Vinod Bhagat has absolutely no connection
with Bank’s right to recover disbursed amount of loans from the six
borrowers. The moment it is admitted that loan amounts of
Rs.1,20,00,000/- were indeed disbursed to Mr. Vinod Bhagat and his >ve
relatives, Bank’s entitlement to recover loan amounts automatically gets
crystalised. If at all there is any de>ciency on the part of the Credit
Society in crediting lesser amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in the Vashi
Branch account of Mr. Vinod Bhagat, it would be for Mr. Vinod Bhagat to
adopt appropriate proceedings against the Credit Society. The said
dispute cannot be subject matter of recovery proceedings, especially in
the light of the fact that all the six borrowers did not dispute disbursal of
loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to each of them.
8) The Divisional Joint Registrar has also recorded a >nding that the
entire deposited amount by borrowers is given due credit in the account
statements. In my view, therefore, all requirements of a summary
enquiry contemplated under Section 101 of the MCS Act is met to the
hilt by the Respondent-Credit Society. There is no warrant for
interference in the impugned order.
9) Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and they are accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab Page No.6 of 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 17 June 2026
Date: 18/06/2026 14:51:12
Checking your session…