Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PARESH J PATELversusDISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OP SOCIETIES EASTERN SUBURBS AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The order dismissing the revision application was set aside and the revision was restored for adjudication on merits.

Summary

The petitioner, Paresh J. Patel, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-II, which dismissed his Revision Application on the basis that full payment of the demanded amount indicated acceptance of liability. The petitioner argued that the payment of Rs.18,36,819 was made under protest and without prejudice to his rights. The High Court examined whether a payment made under protest can be equated with an admission of liability and whether the revision should be decided on its merits. The Court held that the Registrar’s conclusion was erroneous and that the revision must be adjudicated on its merits. Consequently, the Court set aside the Registrar’s order, restored the revision application for merits determination, and partially allowed the writ petition, keeping all parties' rights open.

Issues considered

  • Does a payment of the full demanded amount under protest constitute acceptance of liability?
  • Whether the District Deputy Registrar was justified in dismissing the revision application without considering its merits.

Subjects

  • revision application
  • co-operative societies
  • payment under protest
  • acceptance of liability
  • writ petition
  • High Court of Bombay

Judgment

Neeta Sawant                                                 21-WP-7091-2026.docx


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      WRIT PETITION NO. 7091 OF 2026


Paresh J. Patel                                               …..Petitioner
        : Versus :
District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies (2) & Ors.                             ….Respondents


Mr. Prashant Kulkarni with Ms. Ritika Rajeev i.b. Ms. Rachna Mamnani,               for
the Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Purav, AGP for State.
Mr. Sanjay A. Shah, Secretary of Respondent No.3-Society present in person.




                                        CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATED :          29 AUGUST 2026.
P.C :

1)             The Petition challenges order dated 26 June 2025 passed by the
District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-II, Eastern Suburbs,
Mumbai dismissing Revision Application No. 298 of 2025.


2)             I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner.    Mr. Shah, Secretary of the Respondent-Society is personally
present before the Court and submits that the society does not want to engage
an advocate. He tenders Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the society.

___________________________________________________________________________________

                               PAGE NOS. 1 of 2
                              Saturday, 29 August 2026
                      Neeta Sawant                                                 21-WP-7091-2026.docx


                      3)             Perusal of the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar would
                      indicate that he has refused to go into the merits of the Revision only on the
                      ground that 100% demanded amount is already paid by the Petitioner. The
                      District Deputy Registrar has recoded a finding that deposit of entire amount
                      signifies acceptance of liability by the Petitioner. However, in the memo of
                      Revision Application, the Petitioner had clearly stated that he had deposited
                      100% plus amount of Rs.18,36,819/- under protest and without prejudice to
                      his rights and contentions. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the District
                      Deputy Registrar that there is acceptance of liability on the part of the
                      Petitioner is incorrect.

                      4)             In my view therefore, the Revision Application preferred by the
                      Petitioner deserves to be adjudicated on merits. For that purpose, the order
                      dated 26 June 2025 deserves to be set aside and proceedings deserve to be
                      remanded for adjudication on merits before the District Deputy Registrar. I
                      accordingly proceed to pass the following order :

                              (i)Order dated 26 June 2025 passed by the District Deputy Registrar is
                              set aside.

                              (ii)Revision Application No.298/2025 is restored on the file of the
                              District Deputy Registrar who shall proceed to adjudicate the same on
                              merits.

                      5)     All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. With
                      the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.




         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT   Date:
         2026.08.31
         14:51:36
         +0530
                                                                                [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

                      ___________________________________________________________________________________

                                                      PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
                                                     Saturday, 29 August 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.