YOGESH BABANRAO SALAKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                  1                      WP8779.2026.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                WRIT PETITION NO. 8779 OF 2026

      Yogesh Babanrao Salake                            ...Petitioner

            Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through its Principal Secretary,
      Co-operative, Marketing and Textile Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.    The Commissioner for Co-operation,
      Maharashtra State, Pune.

3.    The Divisional Joint Registrar,
      Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune.

4.    The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies
      (Perseva), Pune District Urban Cooperative Bank
      Association Ltd., Pune.

5.    Navnath Yashwant Jagtap,

6.    The Manager,
      Baramati Cooperative Bank Ltd,
      Baramati, Tq. Baramati, Dist. Pune.

7.    Samarth Enterprises,
      Through Partner,
      Mahesh Devidas Rasker

8.    Ganesh Ramesh Todkar

9.    Yogesh Devidas Raskar

10.   Sandesh Ashok Shelar

11.   Sambhaji Kishan Kurhe
                                    2                       WP8779.2026.odt


12.   Sunanda Devidas Raskar

13.   Machindra Vishnu Raskar

14.   Rajkarna Ramesh Todkar                               ...Respondents
                                    …
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Latange
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. P.K. Palve
                                    …

                          CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

                          DATE       : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :

1.            The Petitioner who is a guarantor to the loan disbursed by

the Baramati Co-operative Bank Limited in favour of Respondent nos. 8

and 9 who are the partners in Respondent no. 7 – Samarth Enterprises.


2.            The original borrowers have availed cash credit loan facility

of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in the year 2016-2017. The said cash credit loan

account was in operation at the time of sanction of subsequent loan on

26.08.2021.


3.            Learned Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Latange, submits

that the bank had sanctioned a term of loan of Rs. 2 Crores as well as

extended cash credit facility of Rs. 2 Crores by the sanctioned order

dated 26.08.2021. This amount was in addition to the already sanctioned
                                    3                        WP8779.2026.odt


cash credit facility amounting to Rs. 1,50,00,000/- that was availed by the

borrowers in the year 2016-2017. According to him, the subsequent

sanction of cash credit loan of Rs. 2 Crores was an extension of the

facility by only Rs. 50,00,000/-. Therefore, according to him, bank had

granted term loan of Rs. 2 Crores and extension of credit facility of Rs.

50,00,000/- on 26.08.2021. The Petitioner signed the necessary

documents for sanction of loan as a guarantor on 26.08.2021, only to the

extent of term loan of Rs. 2 Crores and cash credit facility of Rs. 50

Lakhs. Apart from this, the Petitioner is not concerned with any other

cash credit facility or loan that has sanctioned in favour of Respondent

nos. 7 to 9.


4.             It is submitted that since the borrower defaulted in

repayment of the loan within the stipulated period, the bank filed two

separate Applications; one for recovery of term loan and another for the

cash credit loan. In the proceedings initiated under Section 101 of the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies, Act, Respondent no. 4 has issued

recovery certificates dated 01.09.2022, on two separate Application nos.

373 and 374, without any notice to the Petitioner and without

ascertaining the necessary documents, the order impugned has been

passed in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
                                    4                        WP8779.2026.odt


5.          It is submitted that the recovery certificate is vitiated for the

reason that at no point of time the Petitioner was surety / guarantor of

cash credit loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the original borrowers, since the

bank did not disclose of these facts before Respondent no. 4 while

issuing the recovery certificate. Since no notice was issued to the

Petitioner, he was ignorant about the proceedings and issuance of

recovery certificate, the Petitioner got knowledge about the recovery

certificate only at the time of the proceedings for fixing upset price was

initiated for conducting the auction. Therefore, the Petitioner has raised

objection that he was not liable to be arrayed for the recovery of pre-

existing cash credit loan of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. In spite of raising the

objection, the authority has proceeded to fix the upset price of the

property of the Petitioners situated at land Gat no. 53 and Gat no. 69 at

Village Javla, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar.


6.          Being aggrieved by the fixing of the upset price as well as

issuance of recovery certificate, the Petitioner has filed Revision

Application before Respondent no. 3, challenging the issuance of

recovery certificate dated 01.09.2022. It is submitted that on account of

ignorance of the issuance of recovery certificate, there was some delay in

preferring the Revision Application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra
                                    5                         WP8779.2026.odt


Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed a separate

Application for condonation of delay along with the Revision Application

filed under Section 154 of the Co-operative Societies, Act, being

Miscellaneous    Civil Application      nos.   117/2026     and    118/2026,

challenging the two recovery certificates issued pursuant to Application

no. 374 / Section 101 / 2022-2023 and 373.


7.           It is submitted that Respondent no. 3 without appreciating

the factual and legal aspects involved in the matter has rejected the

Application for condonation of delay in a cryptic and unreasoned order

causing injustice to the Petitioner, thereby depriving him from presenting

his case on merit. Respondent no. 3 has failed to appreciate that the

recovery certificate itself were issued without any notice to the Petitioner.

Therefore, there was a delay in filing the Revision Application. The delay

so caused in filing the Revision Application was justifiable and has been

accordingly, appropriately mentioned in the Application for condonation

of delay.


8.           Mr. Latange, submits that after the rejection of his

Application for condonation of delay on 17.07.2026, by Respondent no.

3, a proclamation is issued for auction of his property as per Rule 107

(11) (c) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies, Act. It is submitted
                                    6                         WP8779.2026.odt


that the proclamation of the auction of the property of the Petitioner is

patently illegal, since it is based on the attachment pursuant to the illegal

recovery certificate issued by Respondent no. 4. Therefore, the

proclamation published on 17.06.2026, deserves to be stalled by issuing

necessary directions to Respondent no. 5.


9.           He further submitted that in fact, the Petitioner had filed a

Regular Civil Suit no. 1015/2026, before the learned Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Parner, praying for restraining the concerned Authorities from

taking possession and proceeding with the further auction of the property

of the Petitioner. In the Regular Civil Suit filed by him, he had also filed

an Application below Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction. Though,

initially a status quo order was passed in his favour, subsequently after

the bank had filed an Application below Exhibit 23 praying for rejection

of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The

learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner, allowed the Application of

the Respondent / Bank, rejecting the plaint in RCS no. 1015/2025.


10.          The Petitioner has raised challenge to the said order in

Regular Civil Appeal no. 130/2026, before Adhoc District Judge – 4,

Ahmednagar, along with the Application below Exhibit 5 seeking stay to

the proclamation of sale of the suit property proposed to be held on
                                    7                        WP8779.2026.odt


23.07.2026. However, learned District Judge, without appreciating facts

and circumstances has rejected the Application below Exhibit 5.

Therefore, left with no other remedy, the Petitioner has approached this

Court raising challenge to the rejection of the Application for

condonation of delay. He submits that although from the document filed

by the Respondent, it is evident that the properties of the borrowers itself

are sufficient to satisfy the amount of loan disbursed to the borrowers, in

spite of that the Respondent Authorities are proceeding against the

property of the Petitioner who is a guarantor. He further submits that after

the Application for condonation of delay is allowed, he is ready to

deposit 50% of the amount that comes to his share as a guarantor. He,

therefore, submits that the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,

Co-operative Societies, Pune, is deserves to be quashed and set aside by

directing Respondent no. 3 to hear the Revision Application of the

Petitioner on its own merits.


11.          Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Palve, appearing for

Respondent nos. 5 and 6, submitted that the Petitioner in fact was given

sufficient opportunity before the Recovery Officer to put forth his case.

In spite of issuance of notice, the Petitioner has chosen to remain absent.

The Respondent / Bank is bound to recover the loan disbursed to the
                                    8                         WP8779.2026.odt


borrowers to keep the business of the bank afloat. If the loan disbursed

are not recovered, the working of the bank would be hampered as it

would not be in a position to disburse further loan facilities to other

members. The recovery of loan from the borrowers is necessary for

upkeep and continuous of business of the bank. He further submitted that

it is a prerogative of the bank against whom to proceed for recovery of

the loan sanctioned by the bank. The Petitioner cannot insist that the bank

should first exercise its option for recovery of loan against the borrowers

only. Relying on the communication addressed to him by Respondent

nos. 6 and 7, i.e. the Recovery Officers of the bank, he submitted till date,

the bank has recovered an amount of Rs. 3,29,162/- and it has still to

recover Rs. 310.43/- Lakhs by auctioning the properties of the borrowers

as well as guarantors. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not come

before this Court with clean hands. Although he is claiming that he has

not been issued any notice before issuing the recovery certificate, is

totally false and misleading. The Divisional Joint Registrar in his order

has clearly observed that the Petitioner was in fact given a notice of

hearing. The public notice as well as the notice of hearing regarding the

upset price were in fact issued to the Petitioner which is supported by the

Registered Post Acknowledgment which is placed on record. The

Revisional Authority, therefore, has rightly held that he is not satisfied
                                    9                       WP8779.2026.odt


with the reasons for delay mentioned for the Application.


12.          He submits that even before the Revisional Authority, the

Petitioner has not stated about the pending proceedings before the Civil

Court. He has suppressed that he had filed civil proceedings. Therefore,

on the ground of suppression of facts, the present Writ Petition deserves

to be dismissed. He would rely on the decision of this Court in Noyal

Madhukar Dethe and Another Versus Laxmibai Dada Alias Dadu Makasare,

passed in Writ Petition no. 7828/2022, wherein this Court has strongly

deprecated the practice of suppression of facts by the Applicant who was

seeking condonation of delay, where this Court has taken a view that in

order to exercise discretion in cases of condonation of delay, there has to

be satisfactory explanation given by the Applicant for exercising such

discretion. In absence of sufficient explanation, such Application does not

deserve any consideration. He further submits that merely with an

intention to prolong the recovery proceedings filed by the bank, the

Petitioner is resorting to delaying tactics by filing proceedings one after

the other, which does not deserve consideration and out rightly deserves

to be dismissed.


13.          I have heard the respective Advocates and also perused the

documents placed on record with their assistance.
                                    10                         WP8779.2026.odt


14.          The status of the parties as well as the fact about

disbursement of loan to the borrowers i.e. Respondent nos. 7 to 9, is not

in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner is one of the

guarantors to the loan and cash credit facility extended to the borrowers.

The Petitioner has raised a dispute that he is not a guarantor to the loan as

well as cash credit facility given to the borrowers in the year 2016-2017,

but he is guarantor only to the extent of term loan and cash credit facility

sanctioned in favour of Respondent nos. 7 to 9, on 26.08.2021, which is

disputed by the Respondent / Bank.


15.          In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to go into the

disputed facts, since the challenge before this Court is confined to the

rejection of Application for condonation of delay. Although the Petitioner

claims that being a guarantor, he was entitled for a notice in the recovery

proceedings initiated by the bank. The observation made in the order

passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, rejecting the Application for

condonation of delay clearly mentions that there is a delay of 3 years 5

months and 15 days in filing the Revision Application which is not

satisfactorily explained with supporting documents.


16.          It is also observed that the Recovery Officer has produced

on record the registered post acknowledgment receipts of the notices of
                                     11                         WP8779.2026.odt


hearing issued to the Petitioner in recovering proceedings for the auction

notice as well as the notice for hearing for determination of the upset

price. The registered post acknowledgment were produced before the

Divisional Joint Registrar. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner about the

ignorance of the orders passed by Respondent no. 4 and subsequent

proceedings up to to the determination of upset price stand falsified.


17.          The Revisional Authority has recorded the aforementioned

observations after verifying the original acknowledgment receipt

produced by the Recovery Officer. He has also observed that the

Application does not state about the number of days delay that has

occurred and it is also not supported with sufficient cause. The Divisional

Joint Registrar after taking into consideration, the documents before him

has passed the order impugned by rejecting the Application for

condonation of delay.


18.          The   Petitioner   is   claiming   discretionary      relief   for

condonation of delay which can be granted only after satisfaction of the

Court / Authority that the reason for delay is bona fide and not

intentional. In the instant case, while seeking condonation of delay before

the Revisional Authority, the Petitioner has not disclosed all the true and

correct facts. The fact that the Petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit no.
                                    12                       WP8779.2026.odt


1015/2026, before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parner, for

restraining the Respondents / Authorities from taking possession and

proceeding further with the auction of the property of the Petitioner, has

been suppressed. The Petitioner had filed a suit with an Application

below Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction and an Application under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, below Exhibit 23 has been

filed by the Bank for rejection of Plaint which was allowed by the

learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner, against which the Petitioner

has preferred Regular Civil Appeal no. 130/2026, before the learned

Adhoc District Judge – 4, Ahmednagar. All these facts about the parallel

proceedings and the alternate remedy availed by the Petitioner has been

totally suppressed by the Petitioner before the Revisional Authority in the

Application for condonation of delay. Thus based on the material that

was placed before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the order refusing to

condone the delay has been passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. For

the first time before this Court, the Petitioner has disclosed that he has

filed a suit and the Respondent no. 6 / Bank had filed an Application for

rejection of Plaint which has been allowed. This conduct of the Petitioner

does not in any way demonstrate bona fides of the Petitioner.


19.          On the other hand the Petitioner is claiming that he has no
                                    13                      WP8779.2026.odt


knowledge about the issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 101

of the Act, which has been totally disproved by the Respondent/Bank,

before the Joint Registrar by producing acknowledgment of service of

notice to the Petitioner. The delay which is sought to be condoned is 03

years 05 months and 15 days, which is not supported by satisfactory

explanation justifying the delay. From the submission made by the

Advocate for the Respondent, it is evident that the Petitioner has not

come with clean hands before the Revisional Authority and lacks bona

fides which can be gathered from the conduct of the Petitioner.

Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for the condonation of delay due

to lack of bona fides and suppression of material facts.


20.          As a result, the Writ Petition is dismissed by upholding the

order dated 17.06.2026, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Societies Pune, in Miscellaneous Application nos. 117/2026

and 118/2026.



                                     ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )




SPC