LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-73

SUNIL SITARAM MAHAJAN Vs. SURYAKANT PANDURANG BADAVE

Decided On June 13, 2018
Sunil Sitaram Mahajan Appellant
V/S
Suryakant Pandurang Badave Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order and judgment dated 1st February, 2017 passed by the learned Divisional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur in Revision Application Nos.373 and 374 of 2016 and the Revision Application Nos. 409 and 420 of 2016. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that all the respondents are served. The statement is accepted. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally.

(2.) The respondent no.4 had obtained a loan from the respondent no.7 i.e. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit. The respondent no.1 and one Ratanlal Madanlal Bamb were the guarantors for the said loan obtained by the respondent no.4 from the respondent no.7 society. The borrower as well as the guarantors committed default in making repayment of the said loan. The respondent no.7 therefore, filed an application under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the M.C.S. Act.") before the District Deputy Registrar, respondent no.2 herein.

(3.) On 1st June, 2010, the respondent no.2 issued a recovery certificate in favour of the respondent no.7 society. The said recovery certificate was neither challenged by the borrower nor by the guarantors. Pursuant to the said recovery certificate, the respondent no.3 attached the immovable property of the respondent no4. The property of the respondent no.1 bearing City Survey No.12029 admeasuring 459 sq. mtrs. at Date Mala, Ichalkaranji was also attached. On 26th December, 2012, the auction came to be held in respect of the said property of the respondent no.1. The petitioner along with other four bidders participated in the said auction. The bid of the petitioner was the highest. It is the case of the petitioner that the bid of the petitioner was much more than the upset price and was thus accepted by the respondent no.