Bombay High Court

RAJESH J. PATELversusDISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (2) AND ORS

Decided: 29 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

A deposit of the full amount under protest does not amount to an acceptance of liability, and the revision application must be heard on its merits.

Summary

The petitioner 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 Rs.26,02,415/- signified acceptance of liability. The petitioner contended that the amount was deposited under protest and without prejudice to his rights. The Court examined whether a payment made under protest can be equated with an admission of liability and whether the Registrar was justified in refusing to consider the merits of the revision. Finding that the Registrar erred in concluding acceptance of liability, the Court set aside the order, restored the revision application, and directed the Registrar to adjudicate it on its merits. The petition was partly allowed and disposed of, keeping all parties' rights and contentions open.

Issues considered

Whether the District Deputy Registrar was justified in dismissing the revision application on the ground that full payment indicated acceptance of liability.
Whether a deposit made under protest can be construed as an admission of liability.
Whether the revision application should be remanded for adjudication on its merits.

Subjects

revision application
co-operative societies
deposit under protest
acceptance of liability
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

Neeta Sawant 21-WP-7092-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7092 OF 2026

Rajesh 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. S.D. Chipade, 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. 300 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-7092-2026.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.26,02,415/- 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.300/2025 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
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SAWANT Date:
2026.08.31
14:51:24
+0530

___________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
Saturday, 29 August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…