ADITYA AGROTECH PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Bank. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of, as common points/issues are involved therein.

(2.) THE petitioners are borrowers of Respondent/Bank in two distinct accounts, failure on their part to repay, resulted in respondent/bank initiating recovery proceedings against them. The Bank approached the learned Assistant Registrar, under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) with its case on 2nd February, 2010, annexing the documents and its claims and also the petitions. Notices were purported to have been served upon the writ petitioners. Petitioners submit, notices are not properly served. However, record placed before this Court and reflected in the certificates, display that there was proper service upon the writ petitioners in both the matters.

(3.) THE certificates in both the matters indeed conceive primary requirement of Rules 81A and 86A to 86E. However, the gaffe and omission, has apparently crept in while traversing with Rule 86F.