Bombay High Court
SANGLI URBAN CO.OP.BANK LTD.versusDR.MADHAV VASUDEO GOGATE and OTHERS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The dispute is not maintainable under Section 91; the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
Summary
The petition filed by Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank challenged the appellate court’s decision that a dispute over the promotion of Dr. Madhav Gogate to Chief Executive Officer of the bank was maintainable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent 1 alleged denial of equal opportunity, illegal appointment of respondent 2, and sought injunctions and declaration of nullity of the appointment. The Cooperative Court had originally dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, but the appellate court reversed that view. The High Court examined whether the reliefs sought pertained to service conditions rather than a cooperative dispute, and held that they do not fall within the ambit of Section 91. Relying on recent precedents, the Court concluded that the appellate court erred in exercising jurisdiction and set aside its order, making the rule absolute.
Issues considered
- Whether a dispute concerning alleged violation of service conditions and promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officer of a cooperative bank is maintainable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- promotion
- cooperative bank
- jurisdiction
- Section 91
- service conditions
- equal opportunity
- appointment
- cooperative societies act
- writ petition
Judgment
901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 461 OF 1997
Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.
A Coop Bank, registered under the
Maharashtra Coop. Societies Act, 1960
and having its registered office at Khanbhag,
Sangali. … Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. Dr. Madhav Vasudeo Gogate,
Adult, Occ. Service, Residing
at Sangli.
2. Shri. Narayan Ramchandra Borgikar
Adult, Occ. Service, residing at
Sangli. … Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. G. H. Keluskar (through V.C.) a/w Adv. Ajay
Parsekar
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Akshay Kulkarni a/w Adv. Avesh
Ghadge, a/w Adv. Aditya Ghadge i/by Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 27.08.2026
PER COURT :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the
Cooperative Court in Appeal No. K-17/1996.
3. A short question raised in the petition is the maintainability of the
dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
Respondent no. 1 had approached Cooperative Court by filing Co.Op.Case
1/4
901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt
No. 888/1993 in respect of cause of action pertaining to the promotion to
the vacant post of Chief Executive Officer. He was non suited by the
Cooperative Court on the ground of jurisdiction as the claim was found to be
not maintainable under Section 91 of the Act. Being aggrieved, appeal was
preferred. By the impugned judgment, the dispute was found to be
maintainable under Section 91 of the Act, quashing the order passed by the
Cooperative Court.
4. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent no. 2, who was promoted to the post of Chief Executive Officer
stood superannuated and the petition has become infructuous. It is further
fairly disclosed by the learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for respondent no. 1 that
his client was terminated from the services and claim against the
termination was non suited by all the forums.
5. Respondent no. 1 had filed Co.Op.Case No. 888/1994 for following
reliefs:
“12- Relief clause :
12.1 It may be declared that,
a) The right of the plaintiff to equal opportunity of
promotion is violated by the Defendant No. 1 Bank in
illegal, mala fide manner.
b) The defendant no. 1 has victimised the plaintiff by
not giving him the opportunity for the appointment to the
post of Chief Executive Officer.
c) The nature of the appointment of defendant no. 2
as Chief Executive Officer is null and void, ultra vires bye-
laws of the Bank, indirect violation of the eligibility criteria
described by the Cooperative Deptt.
2/4
901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt
d) The plaintiff has a right to the appointment to the
post of Chief Executive Officer.
e) That the appointment of defendant no. 2 under
the resolution dated 19.12.94 is null and void.
12.2 (a) The defendant Bank may be injuncted perpetually
by injunction that no appointment to the said executive
post be made without following legal procedures for the
appointment (the procedure includes advertisement and
abidance of equal opportunity).
12.2 (b) The defendant no. 1 and 2 be perpetually
injuncted from entrusting, carrying out the duties of Chief
Executive Officer by defendant no. 2 and the defendant 2
may further be injuncted from taking the benefits of the
post of Chief Executive Officer and further the defendant 2
be injuncted from exercising the powers of Chief Executive
Officer perpetually.
12.3 The plaintiff be awarded the Court costs from the
defendant.
12.4 Leave may kindly be granted to add, alter or
amend the plaint if found necessary.
12.5 Any other just and equitable reliefs that the
Hon’ble Court deems fit be granted in favour of the
plaintiff.”
6. I am of the considered view that the relief claimed pertains to the
service conditions. Respondent no. 1 claimed to be eligible to the post of
Chief Executive Officer, which was denied by passing resolution dated
19.12.1994 and appointing respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for
3/4
901 WP 461 OF 1997.odt
respondent no. 1 tried to articulate that the reliefs are not strictly in respect
of breach of service conditions and no reinstatement is claimed. I find no
merit in the submissions.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex
Court in case of Maharashtra State Co-Operative Housing Finance
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange; 2017 (6) Mh.L.J. 365. In
view of paragraph nos. 10 to 14, I find substance in the submission that
Appellate Court committed error of jurisdiction in holding that Cooperative
Court had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Act. Further reliance is placed
on the judgment of coordinate bench in the matter of Madhukar Mahadev
Patil Vs. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2025(1) Mh.L.J. 284,
which inter alia relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. This
judgment also helps the petitioner.
8. Per contra, reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench in the
matter of Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd. and others
Vs. V.S. Loni and another; 1984 Mah. L.J. 297. In that case, besides
challenging termination dated 04.02.1981, relief of damages was also
claimed. In that context, the Division Bench observed in paragraph no. 27
(iv) that the claim for damages arising out of breach of contract can be part
of dispute entertainable under Section 91 of the Act. The facts of the cited
judgment are distinguishable from the case at hand. I prefer to rely upon
the latest and consistent view being taken by the High Court and the
Supreme Court, referred above.
9. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
4/4
Checking your session…