PARVATIBEN CHANDRASHANKER TRIVEDI SMT Vs. SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Smt. Prabhavatiben is the widow of Chandrashanker Narmadashanker Trivedi who had taken loan from the Gota Group Seva Sahakari Co-operative Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Society). Since the petitioner could not repay the amount of loan in time the Society made an application to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Sabarkantha at Himatnagar under sec. 106 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the issuance of Certificate The District Assistant Registrar Sabarkantha at Himatnagar after making inquiry issued Certificate dated 26-8-1976 (Annexure A to the petition) holding that an amount of Rs. 11 198.42 paise by way of principal amount Rs. 3 85.09 paise by way of interest Rs. 124.55 paise by way of penal interest and Rs. 3.00 for notice fee i.e. in all an amount of Rs. 14 411.06 paise was due and payable by the debtor to the creditor and directed that the said amount be realised by respondent no. 3-Society from the petitioner. In clause 5 of the said Certificate it was further mentioned that the respondent no. 3-Society shall recover surcharge in accordance with the rules and regulations and credit the said amount in the Treasury.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said Certificate the petitioner has filed this petition before this court mainly on two grounds viz.:

(3.) In paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner has stated that the recovery certificate issued is for the total amount of Rs 14 411.06 paise and against that amount the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 15 805.31 paise on the dates mentioned therein. The amount of Rs. 1 590 recovered from the petitioner by way of surcharge appears to have been included in the total amount of Rs. 15 805.31 paise. Mr. N. R. Tandel learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to say definitely that this amount of Rs. 1 590 is not included in the said amount of Rs. 15 805.31 paise. However his contention is hat the petitioner has paid full amount under the Certificate and that she has paid Rs. 1 590 by way of surcharge.