VINOD AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th March, 2012 dismissing the Writ Petition by the Appellant challenging the order dated 17th October, 2011 of the Respondent No. 1 (Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division). The learned Single Judge refused to issue a writ to set aside the order dated 17th October, 2011 of Respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge refused to direct Respondent No. 3 (Satyam-I Cooperative Societies Ltd.) to transfer the shares in the Respondent No. 3-Society, attributable to Flat No. 602 in 'A' wing of the Respondent No. 3-Society (subject flat) to the name of the Appellant from the owners of the subject flat i.e. Appellant's brother and sister-in-law viz. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. This was in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 4 (The Deccan Merchant Cooperative Bank Ltd.) had an interest in the subject flat due to non-satisfaction of the amounts decreed by the Co-operative Court by its order dated 24th August, 2000 as payable by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the Respondent No. 4-Bank. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(2.) In support of the Appeal, the learned Counsel Mr. Jaiswal submits that the impugned order is bad in law for the following reasons:

(3.) As against above, Mr. Ranjit Thorat, Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 3-Society and Mrs. Rekha Panchal, Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 4-Bank, submit that the impugned order is correct in law and calls for no interference. Attention was invited to Rule 107 (4) (ii) of the said Rules which provides that when the sale proceed received from the attached properties are insufficient to meet the demand of the bank, then other immovable properties belonging to defaulter may be proceeded with. It is on the basis of the above provisions that the bank has exercised its rights over the subject flat which belongs to an admitted defaulter namely Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Further, Mrs. Panchal submits that for the purposes of exercising a lien, as done by the letter dated 6th August, 2002 of the Special Recovery Officer of Respondent No. 4-Society, no specific procedures are provided under the Act and the Rules. The procedure as referred to by the Appellant is only after the attachment of the properties for the purposes of sale of the attached property.