DINKAR DATTAJIRAO KADAM Vs. SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a member of the Dudhgaon Vividh Karyakari sahakari Society Ltd. The petitioner has alleged that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs. 26,995/- from the said society. The petitioner alleged that he has paid back the amount to the society and the Secretary of the society has issued receipts of having received the amount with interest thereon. In the said receipts it is staled lhat the amount was credited to the Khata of the petitioner. As a matter of fact the petitioner has annexed copies of several receipts on different dates as Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner thereafter has stated that the petitioner received a notice from the Recovery Officer of the Co-operative Societies Miraj demanding a total amount of Rs, 53,990/- comprising of the principal amount of Rs. 26,995/- plus interest on that amount. The said demand notice is issued under Rule 107 (3) of the rules framed under the Co-cperative Societies Act. The petitioner has alleged that previously also such notice was issued but after reply of the petitioner proceedings were dropped. The petitioners has stated that in the notice dale of the certificate under Section 101 of the said Act is not mentioned nor number of the certificate and as such as the notice is issued without considering the payment made by the petitioner. The petitioner has further alleged that the Asst. Registrar seems to have not taken any action under Section 101 for issuing the certificate and the recovery officer has issued this demand notice on the application made by the society on 4,1. 1984. The recovery officer can issue demand notice only on the basis of the certificate under Section 101. Therefore, the petitioner has alleged that there is every possibility that the recovery officer is acting in his own discretion. The petitioner has alleged that after the demand notice be informed the Asst. Registrar Co-operative socicties that he has paid the amounts demanded in the said demand notice and there is nothing due and payable to the society. On these grounds petitioner has challenged the notice of demand and has also obtained stay of recovery of proceedings.

(2.) AN affidavit in reply has been filed by one Kondiba Bandu Naware, Liquidator of the respondent No, 2 society. The liquidator has stated that because of the mismanagement on the part of the managing committee of the respondent No. 2 society, the society was superseded under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the affiant was appointed as administrator of the respondent no. 2 society. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 society was ordered to be wound up under Sections 102 and 103 of the Co-operative Societies Act on 2. 3. 1987 and the affiant has been functioning as liquidator of respondent No. 2 society since then. It is stated that the accounts of the society were reaudited under Section 81 of the said act. Several discrepancies were set right and thereafter the claims were made against the different members including the office bearers. It is categorically stated that the main culprit responsible for the entire mischief has been the former secretary of the society one Shri Yeshwant Baloo Shirole. He was found guilty of misconduct. Hence, his services were terminated on 27. 11. 1979 by the Sangli District Co-operative Cadre society Ltd. of which he was an employee and who had loaned the services of said shri Shirole to the respondent No. 2 society. It is stated that the dispute has been filed under Section 91 of the said Act by the respondent No. 2 society against the said former secretary Shri Shirole for recovery of Rs, 4,83000/ -. It is asserted that some of the members of respondent society including the petitioner in collusion with the said Shri Shirole have obtained false and fabricated documents for claiming credit against respondent No 2 society. It is asserted in the affidavit that the petitioner had taken loans from the respondent No. 2 society. It is asserted in the affidavit that the petitioner had taken loans from the respondent No. 2 society on several occasions between 1969 and October, 1985. The petitioner availed of the loan facility as under: (a) Short term loan for jirayat crop of Rs. 15,040/ -. (b) Sugarcane crop loan No. 1 of Rs. 10,375/ -. (c) Sugarcane crop loan No t. 2 of Rs. 640/ -. (d) Short term loan of Rs. 940/ -. Thus, the total amount outstanding from the petitioner in the said four accounts was Rs. 26,995/ -. It is asserted that the claim of the petitioner that he has paid the entire dues is false and dishonest. It is categorically stated that the petitioner has produced false and bogus documents which were obtained in collusion with the former secretary Shri Shirole. The receipt forms arc available in the market and any one can purchase them. The rubber stamps can also be got prepared in the name of respondent No, 2 society. The receipts produced by the petitioner are bogus receipts obtained by him in collusion with the former secretary Shri Shirole. Thereafter after making a reference to each and every receipt, copies of which have been attached by the petitioner, some of which are genuine, are accepted, but most of the receipts are stated to be fabricated. It is asserted that for all the amounts duly received and credited with the society, credits have been given and it is only after giving credits for all the amounts paid, balance, due iron the petitioner is Rs. 26,995/ -. Alongwith the affidavit a detailed account in respect of the petitioner is also annexed. It is further stated respondent No. 2 society had recovered amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the sugar factory, to which the petitioner had supplied sugar cane and credit for the said amount of Rs, 7,000 has been given to the petitioner on 18. 8. 1987. It is further categorically stated that in respect of the amount due from the petitioner an application under Section 101 of the said Act was made to the Deputy Registrar and the deputy Registrar after hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of being heard has issued the certificate in favour of the respondent No. 2 society on 31. 8. 1985 under Section 101 of he said Act. The affidavit in fact annexes copy of the aforesaid certificate.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Vinect Naik for the petitioner and Shri Y. R. Naik for the liquidator. After having heard both the learned Counsel and after having gone through the petition and the affidavit in reply and the documents, we have no manner of doubt that the petitioner has made false statement and has accordingly misled the court. The petitioner has feigned ignorance about the certificate having been issued under Section 101 of the said Act, whereas the affidavit in reply clearly shows same was issued after hearing the petitioner. This clearly shows that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has in fact tried to support his case by false and fabricated documents. As a matter of fact the petitioner ought to be prosecuted. However, as far as this petition is concerned, not only we find no merit and, therefore, the petition has to be dismissed, but also we must pass some order which should inflict some penalty on the petitioner. Accordingly we direct that rule is discharged. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the liquidator, We further direct that the liquidator and all the competent authorities under the Act, shall take immediate and effective steps for recovery of the dues and we farther direct thai the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% p. a. on the said amount from 1st December, 1985 till payment. We direct that the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies shall ensure that all effective steps for recovery of the amount are taken immediately. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, pune. Certified copy expcdied.